[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121017151221.4c420e5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:12:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] mm: Allocate kernel pages to the right memcg
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:44 +0400
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> 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.
Well, why? Was that the correct decision?
> This is done by the invocation of
> __free_accounted_pages() and free_accounted_pages().
These are very general-sounding names. I'd expect the identifiers to
contain "memcg" and/or "kmem", to identify what's going on.
--
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