On 01/10/2013 02:06 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:55:14PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] >>> We can use mempressure w/o memcg, and even then it can (or should :) be >>> useful (for cpuset, for example). >> >> The problem is that you end with, at the very least, duplicate >> hierarchical accounting mechanisms which overlap with each other >> while, most likely, being slightly different. About the same thing >> happened with cpu and cpuacct controllers and we're now trying to >> deprecate the latter. > > Yeah. I started answering your comments about hierarchical accounting, > looked into the memcg code, and realized that *this* is where I need the > memcg stuff. :) > > Thus yes, I guess I'll have to integrate it with memcg, or sort of. > That being my point since the beginning. To generate per-memcg pressure, you need memcg anyway. So you would have to have two different and orthogonal mechanisms, and therefore, double account. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>