On Mon 09-10-17 20:17:54, Michal Hocko wrote: > the primary concern for this patch was whether we really need/want to > charge short therm objects which do not outlive a single syscall. Let me expand on this some more. What is the benefit of kmem accounting of such an object? It cannot stop any runaway as a syscall lifetime allocations are bound to number of processes which we kind of contain by other means. If we do account then we put a memory pressure due to something that cannot be reclaimed by no means. Even the memcg OOM killer would simply kick a single path while there might be others to consume the same type of memory. So what is the actual point in accounting these? Does it help to contain any workload better? What kind of workload? Or am I completely wrong and name objects can outlive a syscall considerably? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
