27.02.2013, 13:41, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@xxxxxxx>: > Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the private > communication. > > We already have soft limit which can be implemented to achieve the > same/similar functionality and in fact this is a long term objective (at > least for me). I hope I will be able to post my code soon. The last post > by Ying Hand (cc-ing her) was here: > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/83499 > > To be honest I do not like introduction of a new limit because we have > two already and the situation would get over complicated. I think, there are three different tasks: 1) keeping cgroups below theirs hard limit to avoid direct reclaim (for performance reasons), 2) cgroup's prioritization during global reclaim, 3) granting some amount of memory to a selected cgroup (and protecting it from reclaim without significant reasons) IMHO, combining them all in one limit will simplify a kernel code, but will also make a user's (or administrator's) life much more complicated. Introducing low limits can make the situation simpler. > > More comments on the code bellow. Thank you very much! I'll address them in an other letter. -- Regards, Roman -- 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>