From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754362AbYKFMrf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:47:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753467AbYKFMr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:47:27 -0500 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:40773 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753366AbYKFMr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:47:27 -0500 Message-ID: <30704.10.75.179.61.1225975644.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20081105171637.1b393333.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com><49129493.9070103@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081106194153.220157ec.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:47:24 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/6] memcg: add atribute (for change bahavior ofrmdir) From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" To: "Hugh Dickins" Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "menage@google.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins said: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:24:11 +0530 >> Balbir Singh wrote: >> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> > > >> > > 1. change force_empty to do move account rather than forget all >> > >> > I would like this to be selectable, please. We don't want to break >> behaviour and >> > not everyone would like to pay the cost of movement. >> >> How about a patch like this ? I'd like to move this as [2/7], if >> possible. >> It obviously needs painful rework. If I found it difficult, schedule >> this as [7/7]. >> >> BTW, cost of movement itself is not far from cost for force_empty. >> >> If you can't find why "forget" is bad, please consider one more day. > > My recollection from a year ago is that force_empty totally violated > the rules established elsewhere, making a nonsense of it all: once a > force_empty had been done, you couldn't really be sure of anything > (perhaps it deserved a Taint flag). > yes. that was terrible. (but necessary to do so because we accounted pages not on LRU or some other reason.) > Without studying your proposals at all, I do believe you've a good > chance of creating a sensible and consistent force_empty by moving > account, and abandoning the old "forget all" approach completely. > yes. I'm very encouraged. thanks! After patch [1/6] -> move all at force empty After this -> move all or free (not forget) all. -Kame