[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] memcg: force charge kmem counter too
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Michal Hocko <> wrote:
> On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko <> wrote:
>> Though is there a precedence where the broken feature is not fixed
>> because an alternative is available?
> Well, I can see how breaking GFP_NOFAIL semantic is problematic, on the
> other hand we keep saying that kmem accounting in v1 is hard usable and
> strongly discourage people from using it. Sure we can add the code which
> handles _this_ particular case but that wouldn't make the whole thing
> more usable I strongly suspect. Maybe I am wrong and you can provide
> some specific examples. Is GFP_NOFAIL that common to matter?
> In any case we should balance between the code maintainability here.
> Adding more cruft into the allocator path is not free.

We do not use kmem limits internally and this is something I found
through code inspection. If this patch is increasing the cost of code
maintainability I am fine with dropping it but at least there should a
comment saying that kmem limits are broken and no need fix.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-30 20:15    [W:0.074 / U:2.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site