On 03/19/2013 04:46 PM, 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? > The patch aims at reducing an overhead when there there are no other > groups, right? > You've already noted yourself that this is done in a later patch. -- 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>