From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB3382F64 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so28750549wic.1 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 05:29:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com. [74.125.82.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gh7si194463wjb.118.2015.11.06.05.29.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Nov 2015 05:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmll128 with SMTP id l128so40845705wml.0 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 05:29:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:29:40 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: memcontrol: account socket memory on unified hierarchy Message-ID: <20151106132940.GK4390@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151027154138.GA4665@cmpxchg.org> <20151027161554.GJ9891@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151027164227.GB7749@cmpxchg.org> <20151029152546.GG23598@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151029161009.GA9160@cmpxchg.org> <20151104104239.GG29607@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151104195037.GA6872@cmpxchg.org> <20151105144002.GB15111@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151105205522.GA1067@cmpxchg.org> <20151106090555.GK29259@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151106090555.GK29259@esperanza> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Johannes Weiner , David Miller , akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 06-11-15 12:05:55, Vladimir Davydov wrote: [...] > If there are no objections, I'll prepare a patch switching to the > white-list approach. Let's start from obvious things like fs_struct, > mm_struct, task_struct, signal_struct, dentry, inode, which can be > easily allocated from user space. pipe buffers, kernel stacks and who knows what more. > This should cover 90% of all > allocations that should be accounted AFAICS. The rest will be added > later if necessarily. The more I think about that the more I am convinced that is the only sane way forward. The only concerns I would have is how do we deal with the old interface in cgroup1? We do not want to break existing deployments which might depend on the current behavior. I doubt they are but... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org