On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:39:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > > No kernel memory accounting for root cgroup, right? > Not sure. Maybe kernel memory accounting is useful even for root cgroup. > Same as normal memory accounting... what we want to avoid is kernel > memory limits. OTOH, if we are not limiting it anyway, accounting it is > just useless overhead... Even the statistics can then be gathered > through all > the proc files that show slab usage, I guess? It's better to leave root cgroup without accounting. At least for now. We can add it later if needed. > > > >> @@ -3979,6 +3999,10 @@ static u64 mem_cgroup_read(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft) > >> else > >> val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->memsw, name); > >> break; > >> + case _KMEM: > >> + val = res_counter_read_u64(&mem->kmem, name); > >> + break; > >> + > > > > Always zero in root cgroup? > > Yes, if we're not accounting, it should be zero. WARN_ON, maybe? -ENOSYS? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>