From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton 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 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. If not, please explain. >> This is done by the invocation of >> __free_accounted_pages() and free_accounted_pages(). > > These are very general-sounding names. I'd expect the identifiers to > contain "memcg" and/or "kmem", to identify what's going on. > Changed. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx134.postini.com [74.125.245.134]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E56D6B0062 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg 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> In-Reply-To: <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton 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 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. If not, please explain. >> This is done by the invocation of >> __free_accounted_pages() and free_accounted_pages(). > > These are very general-sounding names. I'd expect the identifiers to > contain "memcg" and/or "kmem", to identify what's going on. > Changed. -- 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 S1755026Ab2JRJY6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:24:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:37123 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754072Ab2JRJY5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:24:57 -0400 Message-ID: <507FCADF.20109@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121009 Thunderbird/16.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton 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 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> In-Reply-To: <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. If not, please explain. >> This is done by the invocation of >> __free_accounted_pages() and free_accounted_pages(). > > These are very general-sounding names. I'd expect the identifiers to > contain "memcg" and/or "kmem", to identify what's going on. > Changed.