From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:30:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20111216133049.GI3122@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <1323676029-5890-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1323676029-5890-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20111214170447.GB4856@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <4EE9E81E.2090700@parallels.com> <20111216123233.GF3122@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <4EEB417B.8000508@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, paul-inf54ven1CmVyaH7bEyXVA@public.gmane.org, lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, gthelen-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, kirill-oKw7cIdHH8eLwutG50LtGA@public.gmane.org, avagin-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, eric.dumazet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEB417B.8000508-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri 16-12-11 17:02:51, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 12/16/2011 04:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > >So why do we need kmem accounting when tcp (the only user at the moment) > >doesn't use it? > > Well, a bit historical. I needed a basic placeholder for it, since > it tcp is officially kmem. As the time passed, I took most of the > stuff out of this patch to leave just the basics I would need for > tcp. > Turns out I ended up focusing on the rest, and some of the stuff was > left here. > > At one point I merged tcp data into kmem, but then reverted this > behavior. the kmem counter stayed. > > I agree deferring the whole behavior would be better. > > >>In summary, we still never do non-independent accounting. When we > >>start doing it for the other caches, We will have to add a test at > >>charge time as well. > > > >So we shouldn't do it as a part of this patchset because the further > >usage is not clear and I think there will be some real issues with > >user+kmem accounting (e.g. a proper memcg-oom implementation). > >Can you just drop this patch? > > Yes, but the whole set is in the net tree already. Isn't it only in some for-next branch? Can that one be updated? > (All other patches are tcp-related but this) Would you mind if I'd > send a follow up patch removing the kmem files, and leaving just the > registration functions and basic documentation? (And sorry for that as > well in advance) Yes a followup patch would work as well. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html