From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/16] memcg: skip memcg kmem allocations in specified code regions Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:47:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20120924174742.GC7694@google.com> References: <1347977530-29755-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977530-29755-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120921195929.GL7264@google.com> <50602343.6040806@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=maA7J+Px1Iblh+LUL9eMfVnrWam2J6jAEEI5dTq3t6g=; b=SOpqGkhlkiHihQMF0zfhxx9FKKGQHGhpgUws3zW/qEQct+GdDOJkI7/VwXlzXbPPo+ unlSIZyu0QnuMniIIaOxYKCNYrJM64Fdh84EmTjcPoF4jfstGqmHYkbMmsUZKUSc9KIC oEcLBaDN7hA75sKu9gbdpVyGCJ10bTC7cQVhrht1XBtnZflmryAKHUpfxBqM0Mlrn4H0 5dsP+cSPyY9ZzjkzBW+JtJQ579apDxJz+Qt1GqiN2hmuNN5SdJGNXNAa9kfCg0Zn5kIn QYABRjcGKjSYhx+1kMaC5pFkzPoPRfQJD7ENUQE6kGIFTwe/kxnu2aJbhhQ8bAHhHWAP Oq4g== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50602343.6040806-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Hello, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:09:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > I can't say I'm a big fan of this approach. If there are enough > > users, maybe but can't we just annotate the affected allocations > > explicitly? Is this gonna have many more users? > > What exactly do you mean by annotating the affected allocations? IOW, can't you just pass down an extra argument / flag / whatever instead? Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx189.postini.com [74.125.245.189]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76DAD6B005A for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so365705pbb.14 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:47:42 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/16] memcg: skip memcg kmem allocations in specified code regions Message-ID: <20120924174742.GC7694@google.com> References: <1347977530-29755-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977530-29755-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120921195929.GL7264@google.com> <50602343.6040806@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50602343.6040806@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Hello, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:09:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > I can't say I'm a big fan of this approach. If there are enough > > users, maybe but can't we just annotate the affected allocations > > explicitly? Is this gonna have many more users? > > What exactly do you mean by annotating the affected allocations? IOW, can't you just pass down an extra argument / flag / whatever instead? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757409Ab2IXRrs (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:55991 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757116Ab2IXRrr (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:47:42 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/16] memcg: skip memcg kmem allocations in specified code regions Message-ID: <20120924174742.GC7694@google.com> References: <1347977530-29755-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977530-29755-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120921195929.GL7264@google.com> <50602343.6040806@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50602343.6040806@parallels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:09:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > I can't say I'm a big fan of this approach. If there are enough > > users, maybe but can't we just annotate the affected allocations > > explicitly? Is this gonna have many more users? > > What exactly do you mean by annotating the affected allocations? IOW, can't you just pass down an extra argument / flag / whatever instead? Thanks. -- tejun