On 08/16/2012 01:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-08-12 18:27:45, Glauber Costa wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I see now, you seem to be right. >>> >>> No I am not because it seems that I am really blind these days... >>> We were doing this in mem_cgroup_do_charge for ages: >>> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)) >>> return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK; >>> >>> /me goes to hide and get with further feedback with a clean head. >>> >>> Sorry about that. >>> >> I am as well, since I went to look at mem_cgroup_do_charge() and missed >> that. > > I thought we are not doing atomic allocations in user pages accounting > but I was obviously wrong because at least shmem uses atomic > allocations for ages. > >> Do you have any other concerns specific to this patch ? > > I understood you changed also handle thingy. So the patch should be > correct. > Do you plan to send an updated version? > That depends more on you than on me! =) Do you still have any concerns regarding the u+k charging as it stands now? That would be the last big concern I heard during this iteration. If you are happy with the answers you got so far, and believe it is acceptable to proceed with the charging this way, I will be ready to send an updated version soon. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>