From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memcg: ratify and consolidate over-charge handling Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:51:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20150914155129.GB20047@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20150913201416.GC25369@htj.duckdns.org> <20150913201442.GD25369@htj.duckdns.org> <20150914124420.GE30743@esperanza> 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=WOkJUIvMqsBlPN+yNv38L7Akfoqy6iKnr2cE3fvloOM=; b=Gb8oz+q4z0ykJuGzuebzhlNIQI5Jbb9zkBmuKr8YqsmlrwYGGN+B+yVbiChCbJ1Tie IPIffqmjcIg7XdJ9q+/URT8YBvTT36v5+A9aYAf5ziXjq4DKPmGWFZnsvwCtg0+ivTkw RBLUfOetuizU5G4XddE0KjONQeUFIQaNqFxZwrXUTEJaVRF/44b+6I9E9s1jwz2Dyqmu jeFg2bVMv5UzwpYo+wiigWfpLcNdmn91A4mE9+qFh9DzZiLEuiFYm0BF+vVGVvZ0jo+s 6fVoKS69yWMK/uhCuMfEDDrQR8Q/m4ERrey6SnMaUrP+jdMf1KfVFLDGA6AkGUDM6kb6 007A== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150914124420.GE30743@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: akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org Hello, Vladmir. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:44:20PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hmm, cancel_charge(root_mem_cgroup) is a no-op. Looks like this is a > leftover from the times when we did charge root_mem_cgroup. Yeap, it's inconsistent but not broken. Will not that in the description. Thanks. -- tejun