On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:46:05 +0400 > Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:03:32 -0500 >> > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > The answer for all of your questions above can be summarized by noting >> >> > that for the lack of other users (at the time), this patch does the bare minimum >> >> > for memcg needs. I agree, for instance, that it would be good to pass the level >> >> > but since memcg won't do anything with thta, I didn't pass it. >> >> > >> >> > That should be extended if you need to. >> >> >> >> That works for me. That is, including this minimal version first and >> >> extending it when we get in-tree users. >> > >> > Btw, there's something I was thinking just right now. If/when we >> > convert shrink functions to use this API, they will come to depend >> > on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. IOW, they won't work if CONFIG_MEMCG=n. >> > >> > Is this acceptable (this is an honest question)? Because today, they >> > do work when CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Should those shrink functions use the >> > shrinker API as a fallback? >> >> If you have a non-memcg user, that should obviously be available for >> CONFIG_MEMCG=n > > OK, which means we'll have to change it, right? Because, if I'm not > missing something, today vmpressure does depend on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. You mean the main vmpressure mechanism? Sorry, this was out of my mental cachelines. Yes, vmpressure depends on MEMCG, because the pressure interface is memcg-specific (global == root memcg) You might want to change that so you can reuse the mechanism and let only the user interface depend on memcg. -- E Mare, Libertas -- 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>