From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755495AbaFKMbO (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]:58192 "EHLO mail-qa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751965AbaFKMbM (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:09 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , Greg Thelen , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Michel Lespinasse , Roman Gushchin , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Message-ID: <20140611123109.GA17777@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20140606144421.GE26253@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1402066010-25901-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <1402066010-25901-2-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20140610165756.GG2878@cmpxchg.org> <20140611075729.GA4520@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140611075729.GA4520@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Michal. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:57:29AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Is this the kind of symmetry Tejun is asking for and that would make > change is Nack position? I am still not sure it satisfies his soft Yes, pretty much. What primarily bothered me was the soft/hard guarantees being chosen by a toggle switch while the soft/hard limits can be configured separately and combined. > guarantee objections from other email. I was wondering about the usefulness of "low" itself in isolation and I still think it'd be less useful than "high", but as there seem to be use cases which can be served with that and especially as a part of a consistent control scheme, I have no objection. "low" definitely requires a notification mechanism tho. Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com (mail-qa0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A916B015A for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i13so4561743qae.33 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com (mail-qa0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q20si31209676qac.109.2014.06.11.05.31.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j7so11096490qaq.3 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:09 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Message-ID: <20140611123109.GA17777@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20140606144421.GE26253@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1402066010-25901-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <1402066010-25901-2-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20140610165756.GG2878@cmpxchg.org> <20140611075729.GA4520@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140611075729.GA4520@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , Greg Thelen , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Michel Lespinasse , Roman Gushchin , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org Hello, Michal. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:57:29AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Is this the kind of symmetry Tejun is asking for and that would make > change is Nack position? I am still not sure it satisfies his soft Yes, pretty much. What primarily bothered me was the soft/hard guarantees being chosen by a toggle switch while the soft/hard limits can be configured separately and combined. > guarantee objections from other email. I was wondering about the usefulness of "low" itself in isolation and I still think it'd be less useful than "high", but as there seem to be use cases which can be served with that and especially as a part of a consistent control scheme, I have no objection. "low" definitely requires a notification mechanism tho. 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