[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150506131622.GA4629@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:16:22 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 05-05-15 12:45:42, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Not all kmem allocations should be accounted to memcg. The following
> > patch gives an example when accounting of a certain type of allocations
> > to memcg can effectively result in a memory leak.
>
> > This patch adds the __GFP_NOACCOUNT flag which if passed to kmalloc
> > and friends will force the allocation to go through the root
> > cgroup. It will be used by the next patch.
>
> The name of the flag is way too generic. It is not clear that the
> accounting is KMEMCG related.
The memory controller is the (primary) component that accounts
physical memory allocations in the kernel, so I don't see how this
would be ambiguous in any way.
> __GFP_NO_KMEMCG sounds better?
I think that's much worse. I would prefer communicating the desired
behavior directly instead of having to derive it from a subsystem
name.
(And KMEMCG should not even be a term, it's all just the memory
controller, i.e. memcg.)
--
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