From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758050AbYDGL7b (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 07:59:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753927AbYDGL7X (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 07:59:23 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:39058 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753842AbYDGL7W (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 07:59:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:03:40 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Balbir Singh Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, Andrew Morton , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pavel Emelianov , hugh@veritas.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [-mm] Disable the memory controller by default Message-ID: <20080407120340.GB16647@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080407115137.24124.59692.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080407115137.24124.59692.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:21:37PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > Due to the overhead of the memory controller. The > memory controller is now disabled by default. This patch changes > cgroup_disable to cgroup_toggle, so that each controller can decide > whether it wants to be enabled/disabled by default. > > If everyone agrees on this approach and likes it, should we push this > into 2.6.25? First I like the change to make it disabled by default. I don't think "toggle" is good semantics for a user visible switch because that changes the meaning when the kernel default changes (which it will likely once the current default overhead is fixed) It should be rather: cgroup=on/off -Andi