On 02/06/2014 06:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-02-14 19:27:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> [...]
>> What does this patch change? Actually, it introduces no functional
>> changes - it only remove the code trying to find an alias for a memcg
>> cache, because it will fail anyway. So this is rather a cleanup.
> But this also means that two different memcgs might share the same cache
> and so the pages for that cache, no?
No, because in this patch I explicitly forbid to merge memcg caches by
this hunk:
@@ -200,9 +200,11 @@ kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
const char *name, size_t size,
*/
flags &= CACHE_CREATE_MASK;
- s = __kmem_cache_alias(memcg, name, size, align, flags, ctor);
- if (s)
- goto out_unlock;
+ if (!memcg) {
+ s = __kmem_cache_alias(name, size, align, flags, ctor);
+ if (s)
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
Thanks.
> Actually it would depend on timing
> because a new page would be chaged for the current allocator.
>
> cachep->memcg_params->memcg == memcg would prevent from such a merge
> previously AFAICS, or am I still confused?
--
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>