David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Do we really need to do memcg accounting in NOMMU mode? Might it be > better to just apply the attached patch instead? > > David > --- > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig > index 2de5b1c..aecff10 100644 > --- a/init/Kconfig > +++ b/init/Kconfig > @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ config RESOURCE_COUNTERS > > config CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR > bool "Memory Resource Controller for Control Groups" > - depends on CGROUPS && RESOURCE_COUNTERS > + depends on CGROUPS && RESOURCE_COUNTERS && MMU > select MM_OWNER > help > Provides a memory resource controller that manages both anonymous If anything I think nommu is one of the better applications of memcg. Since nommu typically == embedded, being able to put potential memory pigs in a sandbox so they can't destabilize the system is a Good Thing. That was my motivation for doing this in the first place and it works quite well. If it would be better to make nommu memcg contingent on some new Kconfig option, we can do that. Steve -- 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>