From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754116AbcGSSS1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:18:27 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:32879 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753690AbcGSSSW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:18:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:18:15 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] resource limits: aggregate task highwater marks to
 cgroup level
Message-ID: <20160719181815.GI3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1468578983-28229-1-git-send-email-toiwoton@gmail.com>
 <1468578983-28229-3-git-send-email-toiwoton@gmail.com>
 <20160715141058.GI3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <f6f93ae6-48c4-bce9-08a2-5067919e8748@gmail.com>
 <20160718225249.GM3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <08d85be0-5ac7-d7ea-0fec-ceb3970f264b@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <08d85be0-5ac7-d7ea-0fec-ceb3970f264b@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello, Topi.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:57:10PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> Then there would need to be new limit checks at cgroup level. Would you
> see problems with that approach?

I'm worried that you're rushing this feature without thinking through
it.  You were mixing up completely orthogonal planes of accounting and
control without too much thought and are now suggesting something
which is also strange.  What do you mean by "new limit checks at
cgroup level"?  How would this be different from the resource
accounting and control implemented in the existing controllers?

Please take a step back and think through the overall design before
proposing changes to userland visible interface.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun