* Re: [PATCH 0/3] filemap_add_folio_nocharge()
[not found] ` <aJNgC7f9RVr_rh47@casper.infradead.org>
@ 2025-08-06 23:19 ` Shakeel Butt
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Shakeel Butt @ 2025-08-06 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Wilcox
Cc: Boris Burkov, linux-btrfs, linux-mm, linux-fsdevel, kernel-team,
hch, wqu, hannes, mhocko, roman.gushchin, muchun.song, cgroups
CCing memcg maintainers.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 03:00:43PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 05:11:46PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > I would like to revisit Qu's proposal to not charge btrfs extent_buffer
> > allocations to the user's cgroup.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/b5fef5372ae454a7b6da4f2f75c427aeab6a07d6.1727498749.git.wqu@suse.com/
>
> I prefer Qu's suggestion to add a flag to the address_space. This really
> is a property of the address_space, not a property of the call-site.
>
I think Michal wanted call-site (explicit interface) for easy
searchability. I don't have a strong opinion either way. However I
wonder if having this information in address_space might be more useful.
At the moment, this series is using !folio_memcg(folio) to detect if the
folio has skipped memcg charging on the free path to decrement the stat.
Having information in address_space would be another way to extract that
information. I need to think more on this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2025-08-06 23:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1754438418.git.boris@bur.io>
[not found] ` <aJNgC7f9RVr_rh47@casper.infradead.org>
2025-08-06 23:19 ` [PATCH 0/3] filemap_add_folio_nocharge() Shakeel Butt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).