[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120625180747.GE3869@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:07:47 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, devel@...nvz.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:15:24PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> When a process tries to allocate a page with the __GFP_KMEMCG flag,
> the page allocator will call the corresponding memcg functions to
> validate the allocation. Tasks in the root memcg can always proceed.
>
> To avoid adding markers to the page - and a kmem flag that would
> necessarily follow, as much as doing page_cgroup lookups for no
> reason, whoever is marking its allocations with __GFP_KMEMCG flag
> is responsible for telling the page allocator that this is such an
> allocation at free_pages() time. This is done by the invocation of
> __free_accounted_pages() and free_accounted_pages().
Shouldn't we be documenting that in the code somewhere, preferably in
the function comments?
--
tejun
--
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