On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? If you have a non-memcg user, that should obviously be available for CONFIG_MEMCG=n -- 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>