Hello, Glauber. On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:46:02PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Yeah, it will need some hooks. For dentry and inode, I think it would > > be pretty well isolated tho. Wasn't it? > > We would still need something for the stack. For open files, and for > everything that becomes a potential problem. We then end up with 35 > different knobs instead of one. One of the perceived advantages of this > approach, is that it condenses as much data as a single knob as > possible, reducing complexity and over flexibility. Oh, I didn't mean to use object-specific counting for all of them. Most resources don't have such common misaccounting problem. I mean, for stack, it doesn't exist by definition (other than cgroup migration). There's no reason to use anything other than first-use kmem based accounting for them. My point was that for particularly problematic ones like dentry/inode, it might be better to treat them differently. 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>