On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:42:15AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 08/17/2012 09:40 AM, Ying Han wrote: > >> > 2) There is no memcg associated with the object, and then we should not > >> > bother with that object at all. > > In the patch I have, all objects are associated with *a* memcg. For > > those objects are charged to root or reparented to root, > > they do get associated with root and further memory pressure on root ( > > global reclaim ) will be applied on those objects. > > > For the practical purposes of what Dave is concerned about, "no memcg" > equals "root memcg", right? It still holds we would expect globally > accessed dentries to belong to root/no-memcg, and per-group pressure > would not get to them. Exactly. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx -- 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>