On Tue 21-08-12 13:22:09, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 08/21/2012 11:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > But maybe you have a good use case for that? > > > Honestly, I don't. For my particular use case, this would be always on, > and end of story. I was operating under the belief that being able to > say "Oh, I regret", and then turning it off would be beneficial, even at > the expense of the - self contained - complication. > > For the general sanity of the interface, it is also a bit simpler to say > "if kmem is unlimited, x happens", which is a verifiable statement, than > to have a statement that is dependent on past history.
OK, fair point. We shouldn't rely on the history. Maybe memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes could return some special value like -1 in such a case? > But all of those need of course, as you pointed out, to be traded off > by the code complexity. > > I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't > keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever. I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for user memory accounting as well one day. But let's see what others think? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
