Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752250AbbLJNkg (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:40:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:33543 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751678AbbLJNke (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:40:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:40:31 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Vladimir Davydov , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reign in CONFIG space madness Message-ID: <20151210134031.GN19496@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151209203004.GA5820@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151209203004.GA5820@cmpxchg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1553 Lines: 33 On Wed 09-12-15 15:30:04, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hey guys, > > there has been quite a bit of trouble that stems from dividing our > CONFIG space and having to provide real code and dummy functions > correctly in all possible combinations. This is amplified by having > the legacy mode and the cgroup2 mode in the same file sharing code. > > The socket memory and kmem accounting series is a nightmare in that > respect, and I'm still in the process of sorting it out. But no matter > what the outcome there is going to be, what do you think about getting > rid of the CONFIG_MEMCG[_LEGACY]_KMEM and CONFIG_INET stuff? The code size difference after your recent patches is indeed not that large but that is only because huge part of the kmem code is enabled by default now. I have raised this in the reply to the respective patch. This is ~8K of the code 1K for data. I do understand your reasoning about the complications but this is quite a lot of code. CONFIG_INET ifdefs are probably pointless - they do not add really much and most configs will have it by default. The core for KMEM seems to be a different thing to me. Maybe we can reorganize the code to make the maintenance easier and still allow to enable KMEM accounting separately for kernel size savy users? [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/