On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:16:47 -0400
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:25:38AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >
> > BTW, why xbf_buf_create() use GFP_KERNEL even if it can be blocked ?
> > memory cgroup just limits pages for users, then, doesn't intend to
> > limit kernel pages.
>
> You mean xfs_buf_allocate? It doesn't in the end. It goes through the
> xfs_kmem helper which clear __GFP_FS if we're currently inside a
> filesystem transaction (PF_FSTRANS is set) or a caller specificly
> requested it to be disabled even without that by passig the
> XBF_DONT_BLOCK flag.
>
Ah, sorry. My question was wrong.
If xfs_buf_allocate() is not for pages on LRU but for kernel memory,
memory cgroup has no reason to charge against it because we can't reclaim
memory which is not on LRU.
Then, I wonder I may have to add following check
if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_RECLAIMABLE)) {
/* ignore this. we just charge against reclaimable memory on LRU. */
return 0;
}
to mem_cgroup_charge_cache() which is a hook for accounting page-cache.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>