Glauber Costa Messages: 916 Registered: October 2011
Senior Member
On 08/16/2012 01:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 15-08-12 18:27:45, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I see now, you seem to be right.
>>>
>>> No I am not because it seems that I am really blind these days...
>>> We were doing this in mem_cgroup_do_charge for ages:
>>> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT))
>>> return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK;
>>>
>>> /me goes to hide and get with further feedback with a clean head.
>>>
>>> Sorry about that.
>>>
>> I am as well, since I went to look at mem_cgroup_do_charge() and missed
>> that.
>
> I thought we are not doing atomic allocations in user pages accounting
> but I was obviously wrong because at least shmem uses atomic
> allocations for ages.
>
>> Do you have any other concerns specific to this patch ?
>
> I understood you changed also handle thingy. So the patch should be
> correct.
> Do you plan to send an updated version?
>
That depends more on you than on me! =)
Do you still have any concerns regarding the u+k charging as it stands
now? That would be the last big concern I heard during this iteration.
If you are happy with the answers you got so far, and believe it is
acceptable to proceed with the charging this way, I will be ready to
send an updated version soon.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
