On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:54:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-04-21 10:53:00, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:28:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > Another approach may be to identify filesystem types that do not > > > need memcg awareness and feed that into alloc_super() to set/clear > > > the SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE flag. This could be based on fstype - most > > > virtual filesystems that expose system information do not really > > > need full memcg awareness because they are generally only visible to > > > a single memcg instance... > > > > Would something like below be appropriate? > > No. First of all you are defining yet another way to say > SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE which is messy. Ok. > And secondly why would shmem, proc > and ramfs be any special and they would be ok to opt out? There is no > single word about that reasoning in your changelog. Right, I am only checking if the suggestion given by David (see above) is indeed this. There are a few other things to take care of which I shall if the overall direction of the patch turns out to be acceptable. Regards, Bharata.
