From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B825E6B0005 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id t14-v6so792244wrr.23 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id f11-v6sor419029wre.53.2018.06.19.15.58.50 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:58:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180619051327.149716-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20180619161149.GA27423@cmpxchg.org> In-Reply-To: <20180619161149.GA27423@cmpxchg.org> From: Shakeel Butt Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:58:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Directed kmem charging Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Jan Kara , Greg Thelen , LKML , Cgroups , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > 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. > Thanks a lot for the review. Ack, I will do as you suggested in next version. > 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? > Sure. thanks, Shakeel