On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:03:32 -0500 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The answer for all of your questions above can be summarized by noting > > that for the lack of other users (at the time), this patch does the bare minimum > > for memcg needs. I agree, for instance, that it would be good to pass the level > > but since memcg won't do anything with thta, I didn't pass it. > > > > That should be extended if you need to. > > That works for me. That is, including this minimal version first and > extending it when we get in-tree users. Btw, there's something I was thinking just right now. If/when we convert shrink functions to use this API, they will come to depend on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. IOW, they won't work if CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Is this acceptable (this is an honest question)? Because today, they do work when CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Should those shrink functions use the shrinker API as a fallback? -- 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>