Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim

[Tejun Heo]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I still think it'd be less useful than "high", but as there seem to be
> > use cases which can be served with that and especially as a part of a
> > consistent control scheme, I have no objection.
> > 
> > "low" definitely requires a notification mechanism tho.
> 
> Would vmpressure notification be sufficient? That one is in place for
> any memcg which is reclaimed.

Yeah, as long as it can reliably notify userland that the soft
guarantee has been breached, it'd be great as it means we'd have a
single mechanism to monitor both "low" and "high" while "min" and
"max" are oom based, which BTW needs more work but that's a separate
piece of work.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/