From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:16:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20150506131622.GA4629@cmpxchg.org> References: <20150506115941.GH14550@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150506115941.GH14550-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Greg Thelen , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 05-05-15 12:45:42, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > Not all kmem allocations should be accounted to memcg. The following > > patch gives an example when accounting of a certain type of allocations > > to memcg can effectively result in a memory leak. > > > This patch adds the __GFP_NOACCOUNT flag which if passed to kmalloc > > and friends will force the allocation to go through the root > > cgroup. It will be used by the next patch. > > The name of the flag is way too generic. It is not clear that the > accounting is KMEMCG related. The memory controller is the (primary) component that accounts physical memory allocations in the kernel, so I don't see how this would be ambiguous in any way. > __GFP_NO_KMEMCG sounds better? I think that's much worse. I would prefer communicating the desired behavior directly instead of having to derive it from a subsystem name. (And KMEMCG should not even be a term, it's all just the memory controller, i.e. memcg.)