From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422655Ab2EKSIj (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2012 14:08:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:42105 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933067Ab2EKSIe (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2012 14:08:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4FAD54E1.6040106@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:05:21 -0300 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: , , , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Greg Thelen , Suleiman Souhlal , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] kmem limitation for memcg References: <1336758272-24284-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <1336758272-24284-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [187.105.248.83] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/11/2012 02:44 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hello All, > > This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. > At this point, I consider the series pretty mature - although of course, > bugs are always there... > > As a disclaimer, however, I must say that the slub code is much more stressed > by me, since I know it better. If you have no more objections to the concepts > presented, the remaining edges can probably be polished in a rc cycle, > at the maintainers discretion, of course. > > Otherwise, I'll be happy to address any concerns of yours. > > Since last submission: > > * memcgs can be properly removed. > * We are not charging based on current->mm->owner instead of current > * kmem_large allocations for slub got some fixes, specially for the free case > * A cache that is registered can be properly removed (common module case) > even if it spans memcg children. Slab had some code for that, now it works > well with both > * A new mechanism for skipping allocations is proposed (patch posted > separately already). Now instead of having kmalloc_no_account, we mark > a region as non-accountable for memcg. > Forgot to mention the ida-based index allocation, instead of keeping our own bitmap. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] kmem limitation for memcg Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:05:21 -0300 Message-ID: <4FAD54E1.6040106@parallels.com> References: <1336758272-24284-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1336758272-24284-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Greg Thelen , Suleiman Souhlal , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , devel@openvz.org On 05/11/2012 02:44 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hello All, > > This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. > At this point, I consider the series pretty mature - although of course, > bugs are always there... > > As a disclaimer, however, I must say that the slub code is much more stressed > by me, since I know it better. If you have no more objections to the concepts > presented, the remaining edges can probably be polished in a rc cycle, > at the maintainers discretion, of course. > > Otherwise, I'll be happy to address any concerns of yours. > > Since last submission: > > * memcgs can be properly removed. > * We are not charging based on current->mm->owner instead of current > * kmem_large allocations for slub got some fixes, specially for the free case > * A cache that is registered can be properly removed (common module case) > even if it spans memcg children. Slab had some code for that, now it works > well with both > * A new mechanism for skipping allocations is proposed (patch posted > separately already). Now instead of having kmalloc_no_account, we mark > a region as non-accountable for memcg. > Forgot to mention the ida-based index allocation, instead of keeping our own bitmap. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org