| Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:36:48 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure |
| |
Hello, Michal, Glauber.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:03:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Haven't we already discussed that a new memcg should inherit kmem_accounted > from its parent for use_hierarchy? > Say we have > root > | > A (kmem_accounted = 1, use_hierachy = 1) > \ > B (kmem_accounted = 0) > \ > C (kmem_accounted = 1) > > B find's itself in an awkward situation becuase it doesn't want to > account u+k but it ends up doing so becuase C.
Do we really want this level of flexibility? What's wrong with a global switch at the root? I'm not even sure we want this to be optional at all. The only reason I can think of is that it might screw up some configurations in use which are carefully crafted to suit userland-only usage but for that isn't what we need a transition plan rather than another ultra flexible config option that not many really understand the implication of?
In the same vein, do we really need both .kmem_accounted and config option? If someone is turning on MEMCG, just include kmem accounting.
Thanks.
-- tejun
|