On 03/28/2014 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 27-03-14 11:37:11, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > [...] >> In fact, do we actually need to charge every random kmem allocation? I >> guess not. For instance, filesystems often allocate data shared among >> all the FS users. It's wrong to charge such allocations to a particular >> memcg, IMO. That said the next step is going to be adding a per kmem >> cache flag specifying if allocations from this cache should be charged >> so that accounting will work only for those caches that are marked so >> explicitly. > > How do you select which caches to track? I though we should pick some objects that are definitely used by most processes, e.g. mm_struct, task_struct, inodes, dentries, as a first step, and then add some new objects to the set upon requests. Now, after Greg's explanation, I admit the idea is rather unjustified, because charging all objects by default and providing a way to explicitly exclude some caches from accounting requires much less efforts and changes to the code. Thanks. -- 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>