On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > 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. > > Would vmpressure notification be sufficient? That one is in place for > any memcg which is reclaimed.
Yeah, as long as it can reliably notify userland that the soft guarantee has been breached, it'd be great as it means we'd have a single mechanism to monitor both "low" and "high" while "min" and "max" are oom based, which BTW needs more work but that's a separate piece of work. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
