Hello, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > The runtime overhead is not negligible and I do not see why everybody > should be paying that price by default. I can definitely see the reason why > somebody would want to enable the kmem accounting but many users will > probably never care because the kernel footprint would be in the noise > wrt. user memory. We said the same thing about hierarchy support. Sure, it's not the same but I think it's wiser to keep the architectural decisions at a higher level. I don't think kmem overhead is that high but if this actually is a problem we'd need a per-cgroup knob anyway. > > We wanna put all memory consumptions under the same roof by default. > > But I am not sure we will ever achieve this. E.g. hugetlb memory is way > too different to be under the same charging by default IMO. Also all > the random drivers calling into the page allocator directly in the user > context would need to charge explicitly. Oh I meant the big ones. I don't think we'll achieve 100% coverage either but even just catching the major ones, kmem and tcp socket buffers, should remove most ambiguities around memory consumption. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>