On Tue 19-03-13 13:46:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 05-03-13 17:10:55, Glauber Costa wrote: > > For the root memcg, there is no need to rely on the res_counters if hierarchy > > is enabled The sum of all mem cgroups plus the tasks in root itself, is > > necessarily the amount of memory used for the whole system. Since those figures > > are already kept somewhere anyway, we can just return them here, without too > > much hassle. > > > > Limit and soft limit can't be set for the root cgroup, so they are left at > > RESOURCE_MAX. Failcnt is left at 0, because its actual meaning is how many > > times we failed allocations due to the limit being hit. We will fail > > allocations in the root cgroup, but the limit will never the reason. > > I do not like this very much to be honest. It just adds more hackery... > Why cannot we simply not account if nr_cgroups == 1 and move relevant > global counters to the root at the moment when a first group is > created? OK, it seems that the very next patch does what I was looking for. So why all the churn in this patch? Why do you want to make root even more special? [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>