From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: force charge kmem counter too
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:31:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180529083153.GR27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod6x5iRmcJ6pYKS+jwJd855jnwmVcPK9tnKbuJ9Hfppa-A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> 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.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-29 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-25 18:55 Shakeel Butt
2018-05-26 18:51 ` Vladimir Davydov
2018-05-26 22:37 ` Shakeel Butt
2018-05-28 9:11 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-28 17:23 ` Shakeel Butt
2018-05-29 8:31 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-05-30 18:14 ` Shakeel Butt
2018-05-31 6:01 ` Minchan Kim
2018-05-31 6:56 ` Michal Hocko
2018-05-31 8:23 ` Minchan Kim
2018-05-31 8:51 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180529083153.GR27180@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox