From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754215Ab2IZUQf (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:16:35 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:64893 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752006Ab2IZUQd (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:16:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:16:29 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Message-ID: <20120926201629.GB20342@google.com> References: <20120926163648.GO16296@google.com> <50633D24.6020002@parallels.com> <50634105.8060302@parallels.com> <20120926180124.GA12544@google.com> <50634FC9.4090609@parallels.com> <20120926193417.GJ12544@google.com> <50635B9D.8020205@parallels.com> <20120926195648.GA20342@google.com> <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:02:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > But think in terms of functionality: This thing here is a lot more > similar to swap than use_hierarchy. Would you argue that memsw should be > per-root ? I'm fairly sure you can make about the same argument about use_hierarchy. There is a choice to make here and one is simpler than the other. I want the additional complexity justified by actual use cases which isn't too much to ask for especially when the complexity is something visible to userland. So let's please stop arguing semantics. If this is definitely necessary for some use cases, sure let's have it. If not, let's consider it later. I'll stop responding on "inherent differences." I don't think we'll get anywhere with that. Michal, Johannes, Kamezawa, what are your thoughts? Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx127.postini.com [74.125.245.127]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 139276B0044 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so2742698pbb.14 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:16:29 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Message-ID: <20120926201629.GB20342@google.com> References: <20120926163648.GO16296@google.com> <50633D24.6020002@parallels.com> <50634105.8060302@parallels.com> <20120926180124.GA12544@google.com> <50634FC9.4090609@parallels.com> <20120926193417.GJ12544@google.com> <50635B9D.8020205@parallels.com> <20120926195648.GA20342@google.com> <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:02:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > But think in terms of functionality: This thing here is a lot more > similar to swap than use_hierarchy. Would you argue that memsw should be > per-root ? I'm fairly sure you can make about the same argument about use_hierarchy. There is a choice to make here and one is simpler than the other. I want the additional complexity justified by actual use cases which isn't too much to ask for especially when the complexity is something visible to userland. So let's please stop arguing semantics. If this is definitely necessary for some use cases, sure let's have it. If not, let's consider it later. I'll stop responding on "inherent differences." I don't think we'll get anywhere with that. Michal, Johannes, Kamezawa, what are your thoughts? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20120926201629.GB20342@google.com> References: <20120926163648.GO16296@google.com> <50633D24.6020002@parallels.com> <50634105.8060302@parallels.com> <20120926180124.GA12544@google.com> <50634FC9.4090609@parallels.com> <20120926193417.GJ12544@google.com> <50635B9D.8020205@parallels.com> <20120926195648.GA20342@google.com> <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=EmfBnrekeXsQTapFNmaKEnfwFalpnQ3FzK+/R6MDFDI=; b=VaLffgcNyWETN8iivl9+QgAG4VfCmyt5ZafmfnOhyrqpJ7RdcblPsLTXG5bvvfueV9 MK2rdPWgiRklPPtaw0Wr3P+tihTwfakDH/VXZrn4W3aOdgDZKoroOXXg7/cLnDAvo9tQ wVmV3EA2RWDRR9f9FoDKP4yRu1P14Q8wPA/tUGO5X3pl/BLPjCBmsjqN5nooDQ/5mlhC G4/HSe8EJnBYlS/Hc5PC8k9k27sk8vxIYwwH2076Wt9cNsJsf7SSXNXcKhP3adtd0tmJ KoBTMckqP4hdOK/FkKMkl/nFnPqYkKUljIN/GeOT08FE7SJHb3yHm+Ut39+PIxqafbBc 9nnQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50635F46.7000700-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:02:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > But think in terms of functionality: This thing here is a lot more > similar to swap than use_hierarchy. Would you argue that memsw should be > per-root ? I'm fairly sure you can make about the same argument about use_hierarchy. There is a choice to make here and one is simpler than the other. I want the additional complexity justified by actual use cases which isn't too much to ask for especially when the complexity is something visible to userland. So let's please stop arguing semantics. If this is definitely necessary for some use cases, sure let's have it. If not, let's consider it later. I'll stop responding on "inherent differences." I don't think we'll get anywhere with that. Michal, Johannes, Kamezawa, what are your thoughts? Thanks. -- tejun