On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > We can try to be clever during the outside pressure and prefer
> > reclaiming over soft limit groups first. Which we used to do and will
> > do after rework as well. As a side effect of that a properly designed
> > hierachy with opt-in soft limited groups can actually accomplish some
> > isolation is a nice side effect but no _guarantee_.
>
> Okay, so it *is* a soft limit. Good. If so, a subtree going over the
> limit of course forces reclaim on its children even though their
> individual configs aren't over limit. It's exactly the same as
> hardlimit. There doesn't need to be any difference and there's
> nothing questionable or interesting about it.
>
> Also, then, a cgroup which has been configured explicitly shouldn't be
^
not
> disadvantaged compared to a cgroup with a limit configured. ie. the
> current behavior of giving maximum to the knob on creation is the
> correct one. The knob should create *extra* pressure. It shouldn't
> lessen the pressure. When populated weith other cgroups with limits
> configured, it would change the relative pressure felt by each but in
> general it's a limiting mechanism not an isolation one. I think the
> bulk of confusion is coming from this, so please make that abundantly
> clear.
>
> And, if people want a mechanism for isolation / lessening of pressure,
> which looks like a valid use case to me, add another knob for that
> which is prioritized under both hard and soft limits. That is the
> only sensible way to do it.
>
> Alright, no complaint anymore. Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
tejun
--
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>