From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 16:46:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20150506144659.GO14550@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20150506115941.GH14550@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150506122431.GA29387@esperanza> <20150506123541.GK14550@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150506132510.GB29387@esperanza> <20150506135520.GN14550@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150506142951.GC29387@esperanza> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150506142951.GC29387@esperanza> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , 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 06-05-15 17:29:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote: [...] > My point is that MEMCG is the only subsystem of the kernel that tries to > do full memory accounting, and there is no point in introducing another > one, because we already have it. Then I really do not get why the gfp flag cannot be specific about that. Anyway, it doesn't really make much sense to bikeshed about the flag here. So if both you and Johannes agree on the name I will not stand in the way. I will go and check into include/linux/gfp.h anytime I will try to remember the flag name... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs