Hello, On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:41:52PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > I am already using static keys extensively in this patchset, and that is > > how I intend to handle this particular case. > > Cool. > > The key point here is that !CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM should have exactly *zero* > performance impact and CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM disabled at runtime should have > absolute minimal impact. Not necessarily disagreeing, but I don't think it's helpful to set the bar impossibly high. Even static_key doesn't have "exactly *zero*" impact. Let's stick to as minimal as possible when not in use and reasonable in use. And, yeah, this one can be easily solved by using static_key. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>