On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Shakeel, > > this looks generally reasonable to me. > > However, patch 1 introduces API that isn't used until patch 2 and 3, > which makes reviewing harder since you have to jump back and forth > between emails. Please fold patch 1 and introduce API along with the > users. > Thanks a lot for the review. Ack, I will do as you suggested in next version. > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:13:24PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > This patchset introduces memcg variant memory allocation functions. The > > caller can explicitly pass the memcg to charge for kmem allocations. > > Currently the kernel, for __GFP_ACCOUNT memory allocation requests, > > extract the memcg of the current task to charge for the kmem allocation. > > This patch series introduces kmem allocation functions where the caller > > can pass the pointer to the remote memcg. The remote memcg will be > > charged for the allocation instead of the memcg of the caller. However > > the caller must have a reference to the remote memcg. This patch series > > also introduces scope API for targeted memcg charging. So, all the > > __GFP_ACCOUNT alloctions within the specified scope will be charged to > > the given target memcg. > > Can you open with the rationale for the series, i.e. the problem > statement (fsnotify and bh memory footprint), *then* follow with the > proposed solution? > Sure. thanks, Shakeel
