On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:24:47 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/18/2012 02:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:44 +0400 > > Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> When a process tries to allocate a page with the __GFP_KMEMCG flag, the > >> page allocator will call the corresponding memcg functions to validate > >> the allocation. Tasks in the root memcg can always proceed. > >> > >> To avoid adding markers to the page - and a kmem flag that would > >> necessarily follow, as much as doing page_cgroup lookups for no reason, > >> whoever is marking its allocations with __GFP_KMEMCG flag is responsible > >> for telling the page allocator that this is such an allocation at > >> free_pages() time. > > > > Well, why? Was that the correct decision? > > > > I don't fully understand your question. Is this the same question you > posed in patch 0, about marking some versus marking all? If so, I > believe I should have answered it there. Yes, it's the same question. The one which has not yet been fully answered ;) -- 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>