On 08/17/2012 09:53 AM, Ying Han wrote: >> > If the other shrinkers are not memcg aware, they will end up discarding >> > random objects that may or may not have anything to do with the group >> > under pressure, right? > The main contributor of the accounted slabs and also reclaimable are > vfs objects. Also we know dentry pins inode, > so I wonder how bad the problem would be. Do you have specific example > on which shrinker could cause the problem? > I don't have any specific shrinkers in mind, but as you said yourself: the main contributors comes from the VFS. So as long as we shrink the VFS objects - and those will be memcg aware, why bother with the others? It seems to me that we're just risking breaking isolation for very little gain. -- 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>