Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller

From: Glauber Costa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:11:21 -0300

On 09/18/2011 04:05 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 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.

Fair.

>>>
>>>> @@ -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?
>
I'd personally prefer WARN_ON. It is good symmetry from userspace PoV to 
always be able to get a value out of it. Also, it something goes wrong 
and it is not zero for some reason, this will help us find it.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to [email-masked].  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email-masked]"> [email-masked] </a>