On 03/10/2012 12:39 AM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
+int
+memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, long long delta)
+{
+ struct res_counter *fail_res;
+ struct mem_cgroup *_memcg;
+ int may_oom, ret;
+
+ may_oom = (gfp& __GFP_WAIT)&& (gfp& __GFP_FS)&&
+ !(gfp& __GFP_NORETRY);
+
+ ret = 0;
+
+ _memcg = memcg;
+ if (memcg&& !mem_cgroup_test_flag(memcg,
+ MEMCG_INDEPENDENT_KMEM_LIMIT)) {
+ ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, delta / PAGE_SIZE,
+ &_memcg, may_oom);
+ if (ret == -ENOMEM)
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ if (memcg&& _memcg == memcg)
+ ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->kmem, delta,&fail_res);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+void
Ok.
So I've spent most of the day today trying to come up with a way not to
kill the whole performance we gain from consume_stock() by this
res_counter_charge() to kmem afterwards...
You mentioned you want to still be able to bill to memcg->kmem mostly
for debugging/display purposes. So we're surely not using all of the
res_counter infrastructure (limiting, soft limits, etc)
I was thinking: Can't we have a percpu_counter that we use for this
purpose when !kmem_independent ?
we may not even need to bloat the struct, since we can fold it into a
union with struct res_counter kmem (which is bigger than a percpu
counter anyway).
We just need to be a bit more careful not to allow kmem_independent to
change when we already have charges to any of them (but we need to do it
anyway)
--
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>