On 09/27/2012 04:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-09-12 16:33:34, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] >>>> So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of >>>> use_hierarchy fiasco. I'm gonna NACK on this. >>> >>> As I said: all use cases I particularly care about are covered by a >>> global switch. >>> >>> I am laying down my views because I really believe they make more sense. >>> But at some point, of course, I'll shut up if I believe I am a lone voice. >>> >>> I believe it should still be good to hear from mhocko and kame, but from >>> your point of view, would all the rest, plus the introduction of a >>> global switch make it acceptable to you? >> >> The only thing I'm whining about is per-node switch + silently >> ignoring past accounting, so if those two are solved, I think I'm >> pretty happy with the rest. > > I think that per-group "switch" is not nice as well but if we make it > hierarchy specific (which I am proposing for quite some time) and do not > let enable accounting for a group with tasks then we get both > flexibility and reasonable semantic. A global switch sounds too coars to > me and it really not necessary. > > Would this work with you? >
How exactly would that work? AFAIK, we have a single memcg root, we can't have multiple memcg hierarchies in a system. Am I missing something? _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
