On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/12/2011 02:03 AM, Paul Menage wrote: >> I definitely think that there was no consensus reached on unified >> versus split charging - but I think that we can work around that and >> keep everyone happy, see below. > > I think at this point there is at least consensus that this could very well > live in memcg, right ? Yes, I think it should live in memcg. >> On the subject of filesystems specifically, see Greg Thelen's proposal >> for using bind mounts to account on a bind mount to a given cgroup - >> that could apply to dentries, page tables and other kernel memory as >> well as page cache. > > Care to point me to it ? http://marc.info/?t=127749867100004&r=1&w=2 -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>