[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110918190509.GC28057@shutemov.name>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:05:09 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, gthelen@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory
Controller
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:39:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right?
> Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup.
> Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel
> memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is
> just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered
> through all
> the proc files that show slab usage, I guess?
It's better to leave root cgroup without accounting. At least for now.
We can add it later if needed.
> >
> >> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft)
> >> else
> >> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name);
> >> break;
> >> + case _KMEM:
> >> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name);
> >> + break;
> >> +
> >
> > Always zero in root cgroup?
>
> Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe?
-ENOSYS?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists