On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:31:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 23-02-17 14:36:39, Laurent Dufour wrote: > > Until a soft limit is set to a cgroup, the soft limit data are useless > > so delay this allocation when a limit is set. > > Hmm, I am still undecided whether this is actually worth it. On one hand > distribution kernels tend to have quite large NUMA_SHIFT (e.g. SLES has > NUMA_SHIFT=10 and then we will save 8kB+12kB which is not hell of a lot > but always good if we can save that, especially for a rarely used > feature. The code grown on the other hand (it was in __init section > previously) which is a minus, on the other hand. > > What do you think Johannes? Hohumm, saving 5 pages on a NUMA machine vs. the additional complexity and the increased risk of memory problems when somebody sets up a soft limit after some uptime... I don't think I can give a strong yes or no on this one, so inertia wins for me; I'd just leave it alone. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
