From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F466B0005 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id g73-v6so457828wmc.5 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org (gum.cmpxchg.org. [85.214.110.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t46-v6si192558edb.396.2018.06.19.09.09.32 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:11:49 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Directed kmem charging Message-ID: <20180619161149.GA27423@cmpxchg.org> References: <20180619051327.149716-1-shakeelb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180619051327.149716-1-shakeelb@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Jan Kara , Greg Thelen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Hi Shakeel, this looks generally reasonable to me. However, patch 1 introduces API that isn't used until patch 2 and 3, which makes reviewing harder since you have to jump back and forth between emails. Please fold patch 1 and introduce API along with the users. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:13:24PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > This patchset introduces memcg variant memory allocation functions. The > caller can explicitly pass the memcg to charge for kmem allocations. > Currently the kernel, for __GFP_ACCOUNT memory allocation requests, > extract the memcg of the current task to charge for the kmem allocation. > This patch series introduces kmem allocation functions where the caller > can pass the pointer to the remote memcg. The remote memcg will be > charged for the allocation instead of the memcg of the caller. However > the caller must have a reference to the remote memcg. This patch series > also introduces scope API for targeted memcg charging. So, all the > __GFP_ACCOUNT alloctions within the specified scope will be charged to > the given target memcg. Can you open with the rationale for the series, i.e. the problem statement (fsnotify and bh memory footprint), *then* follow with the proposed solution? Thanks!