From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:44:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20121018134457.5e7edd19.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <507FCADF.20109-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > On 10/18/2012 02:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:44 +0400 > > Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> When a process tries to allocate a page with the __GFP_KMEMCG flag, the > >> page allocator will call the corresponding memcg functions to validate > >> the allocation. Tasks in the root memcg can always proceed. > >> > >> To avoid adding markers to the page - and a kmem flag that would > >> necessarily follow, as much as doing page_cgroup lookups for no reason, > >> whoever is marking its allocations with __GFP_KMEMCG flag is responsible > >> for telling the page allocator that this is such an allocation at > >> free_pages() time. > > > > Well, why? Was that the correct decision? > > > > I don't fully understand your question. Is this the same question you > posed in patch 0, about marking some versus marking all? If so, I > believe I should have answered it there. Yes, it's the same question. The one which has not yet been fully answered ;) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx201.postini.com [74.125.245.201]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 762276B0044 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:44:57 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg Message-Id: <20121018134457.5e7edd19.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > On 10/18/2012 02:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:44 +0400 > > Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> When a process tries to allocate a page with the __GFP_KMEMCG flag, the > >> page allocator will call the corresponding memcg functions to validate > >> the allocation. Tasks in the root memcg can always proceed. > >> > >> To avoid adding markers to the page - and a kmem flag that would > >> necessarily follow, as much as doing page_cgroup lookups for no reason, > >> whoever is marking its allocations with __GFP_KMEMCG flag is responsible > >> for telling the page allocator that this is such an allocation at > >> free_pages() time. > > > > Well, why? Was that the correct decision? > > > > I don't fully understand your question. Is this the same question you > posed in patch 0, about marking some versus marking all? If so, I > believe I should have answered it there. Yes, it's the same question. The one which has not yet been fully answered ;) -- 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 S1756172Ab2JRUpA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:45:00 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39982 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754884Ab2JRUo7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:44:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:44:57 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Glauber Costa Cc: , , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , , , Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg Message-Id: <20121018134457.5e7edd19.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-8-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > On 10/18/2012 02:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:44 +0400 > > Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> When a process tries to allocate a page with the __GFP_KMEMCG flag, the > >> page allocator will call the corresponding memcg functions to validate > >> the allocation. Tasks in the root memcg can always proceed. > >> > >> To avoid adding markers to the page - and a kmem flag that would > >> necessarily follow, as much as doing page_cgroup lookups for no reason, > >> whoever is marking its allocations with __GFP_KMEMCG flag is responsible > >> for telling the page allocator that this is such an allocation at > >> free_pages() time. > > > > Well, why? Was that the correct decision? > > > > I don't fully understand your question. Is this the same question you > posed in patch 0, about marking some versus marking all? If so, I > believe I should have answered it there. Yes, it's the same question. The one which has not yet been fully answered ;)