On 08/21/2012 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? >
Way I see it, this is simplifying the code at the expense of complicating the interface. >> 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. > Since this would change a then established behavior, the same discussions about compatibility we ever get to will rise. It is a pain we'd better avoid if we can. > But let's see what others think? > Absolutely. Hello others, what do you think ? _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
