Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the MemoryController

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 16-12-11 17:02:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 04:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >So why do we need kmem accounting when tcp (the only user at the moment)
> >doesn't use it?
> 
> Well, a bit historical. I needed a basic placeholder for it, since
> it tcp is officially kmem. As the time passed, I took most of the
> stuff out of this patch to leave just the basics I would need for
> tcp.
> Turns out I ended up focusing on the rest, and some of the stuff was
> left here.
> 
> At one point I merged tcp data into kmem, but then reverted this
> behavior. the kmem counter stayed.
> 
> I agree deferring the whole behavior would be better.
> 
> >>In summary, we still never do non-independent accounting. When we
> >>start doing it for the other caches, We will have to add a test at
> >>charge time as well.
> >
> >So we shouldn't do it as a part of this patchset because the further
> >usage is not clear and I think there will be some real issues with
> >user+kmem accounting (e.g. a proper memcg-oom implementation).
> >Can you just drop this patch?
> 
> Yes, but the whole set is in the net tree already. 

Isn't it only in some for-next branch? Can that one be updated?

> (All other patches are tcp-related but this) Would you mind if I'd
> send a follow up patch removing the kmem files, and leaving just the
> registration functions and basic documentation? (And sorry for that as
> well in advance)

Yes a followup patch would work as well.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/