On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:14:01PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I don't think marking config options as "UNDER DEVELOPMENT" in its
> help documentation means anything. It's a rather silly thing to do.
> Not many people pay much attention to the help texts and once somebody
> somewhere enabled the
Hello, Andrew.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:43:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 17 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 761 deletions(-)
>
> Sob.
>
> Is there a convenient way of disabling the whole thing and adding a
> please-tell-us printk? If nobody tells us for a year or two then zap.
Given
Hello, Vladimir.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:42:57AM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > So, I'd love to see this happen too but I don't think we can do this.
> > People use published interface. The usages might be utterly one-off
> > and mental but let's please not underestimate the sometimes
Hello, Vladimir.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:42:57AM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
So, I'd love to see this happen too but I don't think we can do this.
People use published interface. The usages might be utterly one-off
and mental but let's please not underestimate the sometimes senseless
Hello, Andrew.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:43:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
17 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 761 deletions(-)
Sob.
Is there a convenient way of disabling the whole thing and adding a
please-tell-us printk? If nobody tells us for a year or two then zap.
Given that
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:14:01PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
I don't think marking config options as UNDER DEVELOPMENT in its
help documentation means anything. It's a rather silly thing to do.
Not many people pay much attention to the help texts and once somebody
somewhere enabled the option
Hi Tejun,
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 02:55:16AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, guys.
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
> > > but per
Hi Michal,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
> > but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
> > (it prevents the
Hi Michal,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
(it prevents the system
Hi Tejun,
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 02:55:16AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, guys.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 02:55:16 +0900 Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, guys.
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
> > > but per memory cgroup.
Hello, guys.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
> > but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
> > (it prevents the
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
> but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
> (it prevents the system from becoming unusable due to uncontrolled tcp
> buffers growth) the reason
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
(it prevents the system from becoming unusable due to uncontrolled tcp
buffers growth) the reason why we need such a knob in containers isn't
clear to me.
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
(it prevents the system from becoming unusable due to uncontrolled tcp
buffers growth) the reason why we need such a knob in containers isn't
clear to me.
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
(it prevents the system from becoming unusable due to uncontrolled tcp
buffers growth) the reason why
Hello, guys.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory cgroup. While the existence of the latter is justified
(it prevents the system
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 02:55:16 +0900 Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello, guys.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 12-09-14 19:26:58, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes works as the system-wide tcp_mem sysctl,
but per memory
18 matches
Mail list logo
