On 09/06/2012 04:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Just so I understand it:
>> >
>> > Michal clearly objected before folding his patch with my Kconfig patch.
>> > But is there still opposition to merge both?
> I do not find the config option very much useful but if others feel it
> really is I won't
On 09/06/2012 04:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Just so I understand it:
Michal clearly objected before folding his patch with my Kconfig patch.
But is there still opposition to merge both?
I do not find the config option very much useful but if others feel it
really is I won't block it.
On Thu 06-09-12 16:09:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Hello, Michal.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
> >>> 1) warn about
On 09/06/2012 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Michal.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
>>> 1) warn about "flat" hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
>>>
On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
> > 1) warn about "flat" hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
> >to as many Suse code streams as possible
On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
1) warn about flat hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
to as many Suse code streams as possible (hope other
On 09/06/2012 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
1) warn about flat hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
to as many Suse
On Thu 06-09-12 16:09:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/06/2012 04:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 05-09-12 13:12:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
1) warn about flat hierarchies
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
> 1) warn about "flat" hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
>to as many Suse code streams as possible (hope other distributions
>could do the same)
I think
On Wed 05-09-12 12:14:12, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 08:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > [...]
> I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
> good result.
> >>>
> >>> I am still not sure we want to
On 09/04/2012 08:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
> [...]
I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
good result.
>>>
>>> I am still not sure we want to add a config option for something that is
>>> meant to go
On 09/04/2012 08:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
good result.
I am still not sure we want to add a config option for something that is
meant to go away. But let's see
On Wed 05-09-12 12:14:12, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/04/2012 08:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
good result.
I am still not sure we want to add a config option for
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
Can we settle on the following 3 steps?
1) warn about flat hierarchies (give it X releases) - I will push it
to as many Suse code streams as possible (hope other distributions
could do the same)
I think I'm
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 04:35:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
> The problem is that we don't know whether somebody has an use case which
> cannot be transformed like that. Therefore this patch starts the slow
> transition to hierarchical only memory controller by warning users who
>
On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
> >> I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
> >> good result.
> >
> > I am still not sure we want to add a config option for something that is
> > meant to go away. But let's see what others think.
> >
>
> So
>> I believe it would be really great to have a way to turn the default
>> to 1 - and stop the shouting.
>
> We already can. You can use /etc/cgconfig (if you are using libcgroup)
> or do it manually.
>
>> Even if you are doing it in OpenSUSE as a patch, an upstream patch means
>> at least that
On Tue 04-09-12 18:37:53, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 06:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
> >>> something is about to
On 09/04/2012 06:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
>>> something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
>>> will
On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
> > something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
> > will be really hard with the config option saying N
On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
> something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
> will be really hard with the config option saying N by default. People
> will ignore that until it's too
On Tue 04-09-12 12:34:45, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/03/2012 09:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
> >> the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I
On 09/03/2012 09:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
>> the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
>> before, I am making this behavior conditional on a
>
>> + of the root memcg, regardless of their positioning in the tree.
>> +
>> + Use of flat hierarchies is highly discouraged, but has been the
>> + default for performance reasons for quite some time. Setting this flag
>> + to on will make hierarchical accounting the
+ of the root memcg, regardless of their positioning in the tree.
+
+ Use of flat hierarchies is highly discouraged, but has been the
+ default for performance reasons for quite some time. Setting this flag
+ to on will make hierarchical accounting the default. It is
On 09/03/2012 09:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
before, I am making this behavior conditional on a
On Tue 04-09-12 12:34:45, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/03/2012 09:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
will be really hard with the config option saying N by default. People
will ignore that until it's too late.
On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
will be really hard with the config option saying N by
On 09/04/2012 06:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
something is about to change and they have a lot of time for that. This
will be really
On Tue 04-09-12 18:37:53, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/04/2012 06:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 04-09-12 17:27:20, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 09/04/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Not really. Do it slowly means that somebody actually _notices_ that
something is about to change and they
I believe it would be really great to have a way to turn the default
to 1 - and stop the shouting.
We already can. You can use /etc/cgconfig (if you are using libcgroup)
or do it manually.
Even if you are doing it in OpenSUSE as a patch, an upstream patch means
at least that every
On Tue 04-09-12 18:54:08, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
I'd personally believe merging both our patches together would achieve a
good result.
I am still not sure we want to add a config option for something that is
meant to go away. But let's see what others think.
So what you
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 04:35:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
The problem is that we don't know whether somebody has an use case which
cannot be transformed like that. Therefore this patch starts the slow
transition to hierarchical only memory controller by warning users who
are
On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
> the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
> before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
> Vanilla users will see no
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 07:46:51PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
> the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
> before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
> Vanilla users
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
Vanilla users will see no change in behavior unless they don't
explicitly set this
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
Vanilla users will see no change in behavior unless they don't
explicitly set this
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 07:46:51PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
Vanilla users will
On Mon 03-09-12 19:46:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
Here is a new attempt to lay down a path that will allow us to deprecate
the non-hierarchical mode of operation from memcg. Unlike what I posted
before, I am making this behavior conditional on a Kconfig option.
Vanilla users will see no change
40 matches
Mail list logo
