* Steve Magnani <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-10-01 09:31:39]: > 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. Good to know, but I want to point out that I never explictly tested it for NOMMU when I created memcg. I thought like the rest that not having reclaim capability would limit memcg usage in the NOMMU world. -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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>