From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f182.google.com (mail-yk0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3386B6B0254 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so285991834yke.2 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yk0-x22e.google.com (mail-yk0-x22e.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v13si9112424ywg.289.2015.11.09.12.30.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by ykdr82 with SMTP id r82so10716100ykd.3 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 12:30:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:30:53 -0500 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Message-ID: <20151109203053.GD28507@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20151109140832.GE8916@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> <20151109185401.GB28507@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151109192747.GN31308@esperanza> <20151109193253.GC28507@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151109201218.GP31308@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151109201218.GP31308@esperanza> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Greg Thelen , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Vladimir. On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:12:18PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Because we won't be able to distinguish kmem_cache_alloc calls that > should be accounted from those that shouldn't. The problem is if two > caches > > A = kmem_cache_create(...) > > and > > B = kmem_cache_create(...) > > happen to be merged, A and B will point to the same kmem_cache struct. > As a result, there is no way to distinguish > > kmem_cache_alloc(A) > > which we want to account from > > kmem_cache_alloc(B) > > which we don't. Hmm.... can't we simply merge among !SLAB_ACCOUNT and SLAB_ACCOUNT kmem_caches within themselves? I don't think we'd be losing anything by restricting merge at that level. For anything to be tagged SLAB_ACCOUNT, it has to have a potential to grow enormous after all. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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