On Fri 16-12-11 17:02:51, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 12/16/2011 04:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > >So why do we need kmem accounting when tcp (the only user at the moment) > >doesn't use it? > > Well, a bit historical. I needed a basic placeholder for it, since > it tcp is officially kmem. As the time passed, I took most of the > stuff out of this patch to leave just the basics I would need for > tcp. > Turns out I ended up focusing on the rest, and some of the stuff was > left here. > > At one point I merged tcp data into kmem, but then reverted this > behavior. the kmem counter stayed. > > I agree deferring the whole behavior would be better. > > >>In summary, we still never do non-independent accounting. When we > >>start doing it for the other caches, We will have to add a test at > >>charge time as well. > > > >So we shouldn't do it as a part of this patchset because the further > >usage is not clear and I think there will be some real issues with > >user+kmem accounting (e.g. a proper memcg-oom implementation). > >Can you just drop this patch? > > Yes, but the whole set is in the net tree already. Isn't it only in some for-next branch? Can that one be updated? > (All other patches are tcp-related but this) Would you mind if I'd > send a follow up patch removing the kmem files, and leaving just the > registration functions and basic documentation? (And sorry for that as > well in advance) Yes a followup patch would work as well. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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>