On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 09:43:35AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Right but isn't that what the caller explicitly asked for? Why should we > > ignore that for kmem accounting? It seems like a fix at a wrong layer to > > me. Either we should start failing GFP_NOWAIT charges when we are above > > high wmark or deploy an additional catchup mechanism as suggested by > > Tejun. I like the later more because it allows to better handle GFP_NOFS > > requests as well and there are many sources of these from kmem paths. > > Yeah, this is beginning to look like we're trying to solve the problem > at the wrong layer. slab/slub or whatever else should be able to use > GFP_NOWAIT in whatever frequency they want for speculative > allocations. slab/slub can issue alloc_pages() any time with any flags they want and it won't be accounted to memcg, because kmem is accounted at slab/slub layer, not in buddy. Thanks, Vladimir -- 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>