[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC611F4.7010202@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:26:28 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/28] memcg: kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure
On 05/30/2012 04:17 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:03:36PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM */
>> +static __always_inline struct kmem_cache *
>> +mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
>> +{
>> + if (!mem_cgroup_kmem_on)
>> + return cachep;
>> + if (!current->mm)
>> + return cachep;
>> + if (in_interrupt())
>> + return cachep;
>
> Does that mean interrupts are kept out of accounting?
Well, since interrupts have no process context, if you are in an
interrupt I can't think of any sane thing to do than relay it to the
root memcg. That's what happen when I return cachep: I return the
original parent cache, and we allocate from that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists