From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757342Ab2IXRiU (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:38:20 -0400 Received: from a194-183.smtp-out.amazonses.com ([199.255.194.183]:56523 "EHLO a194-183.smtp-out.amazonses.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755601Ab2IXRiT (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:38:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:38:17 +0000 From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: Glauber Costa cc: Pekka Enberg , Tejun Heo , "" , "" , "" , "" , "" , Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/16] consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create_cache In-Reply-To: <50607E0C.7020606@parallels.com> Message-ID: <00000139f95ba955-a9faffde-33d6-420c-97ee-5dd7f728ef9b-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <1347977530-29755-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977530-29755-6-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120921181458.GG7264@google.com> <506015E7.8030900@parallels.com> <00000139f84bdedc-aae672a6-2908-4cb8-8ed3-8fedf67a21af-000000@email.amazonses.com> <50605500.5050606@parallels.com> <00000139f8836571-6ddc9d5b-1d5f-4542-92f9-ad11070e5b7d-000000@email.amazonses.com> <506063B8.70305@parallels.com> <00000139f890a302-980aee84-40b2-433f-8dbd-e7b1d219f00d-000000@email.amazonses.com> <506066E3.6050705@parallels.com> <50607E0C.7020606@parallels.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SES-Outgoing: 199.255.194.183 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > So Christoph is proposing that the new caches appear somewhere under > > the cgroups directory and /proc/slabinfo includes aggregated counts, > > right? I'm certainly OK with that. > > > Just for clarification, I am not sure about the aggregate counts - > although it surely makes sense. > > Christoph, is that what you're proposing ? Yes. Make it similar to the way /proc/meminfo is handled.