On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 14:04 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > If you boot with memcg compiled in, that's taking an equivalent amount > of memory per-page. > > If you can bear the memory loss when memcg is compiled in even when > not enabled, you sure can bear it on NUMA systems that have lots of > memory, so it's perfectly ok to sacrifice a bit of it so that it > performs like not-NUMA but you still have more memory than not-NUMA. > I think the overhead of memcg is quite insane as well. And no I cannot bear that and have it disabled in all my kernels. NUMA systems having lots of memory is a false argument, that doesn't mean we can just waste tons of it, people pay good money for that memory, they want to use it. I fact, I know that HPC people want things like swap-over-nfs so they can push infrequently running system crap out into swap so they can get these few extra megabytes of memory. And you're proposing they give up ~100M just like that? -- 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