Received: by 2002:ac0:a5b6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m51-v6csp3138480imm; Tue, 29 May 2018 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKF41Uip5gMlh23dc7RMNOKQMbyJW1J9NBHWmFmjbWaLnKGZcgxwYaVWzErSn7ukt4mMbzr X-Received: by 2002:a62:d9c5:: with SMTP id b66-v6mr11349109pfl.41.1527582769111; Tue, 29 May 2018 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1527582769; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JT4AehScWWfod+xZ4kPlgIKE9unvtU337smqUencZbeFcC89m+saQLliS8MCHzYYgZ h1jrkCsaFuAr+7PCEqwDLenYicrCyYbK5hbRUOXrc+E/KBkRcjCUpHqoxOSQzUsWqh7P IshkBqxkSDQZTSFnQBbTReZ4ANIZ2Qjq1gs0tmNcqDzC2Tz4KPne4/QdBG6oslHDEDfY PkBsMcFJSiDZpUnmR5vwffprmotxUwuZZuABad97UCmBhS7i6/2aFrC7u0FJRHpg5z2k Ny9dMGdZv8ExGbvH8kNVcrCq7yPBP3zXEGMJz3oSMLowZ/TXhGnKGAnWZ+SABchyUqAa oFPg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=IIPV6q7WSsNO7DS6dynVIycgQWqNzsQT3aig+0640X0=; b=TDdNXz8NiEdhB76sdWExCh2IK+nFk8Rc2uEv7h+wvNLe1+qw7EMZiJOsQDXA2uSDZR KkrwXJj73wTgvHv65uWUmrpjgXocB39A96J+K3Eap9g2Z3mN9d9zQ/nwe7kM9WPpkTU1 B4TZdO2HPLy0EqcxCrDSakHlzvl2+qzfeIHcWvl2QiwpJSfRGcMphbburVMPyODk6AjJ 8fbu4qm3rrZOD0/eUF33NQnJjLIgZpsbVHf0Ccg0+QMfXsrwAP9S75sAgTkgGhdGjAxP WFr4q5apBC1fZbS0qDEp9taEHmb5DjqkcA2r6KgwTSqpUADfUv65Z2cxrmQZ0xpahWj4 mbgA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z8-v6si32037150plk.539.2018.05.29.01.32.34; Tue, 29 May 2018 01:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755334AbeE2Ib6 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:31:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49187 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbeE2Ibz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:31:55 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext-too.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2AFAF84; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:31:53 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Linux MM , Cgroups , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: force charge kmem counter too Message-ID: <20180529083153.GR27180@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180525185501.82098-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20180526185144.xvh7ejlyelzvqwdb@esperanza> <20180528091110.GG1517@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Though is there a precedence where the broken feature is not fixed > because an alternative is available? Well, I can see how breaking GFP_NOFAIL semantic is problematic, on the other hand we keep saying that kmem accounting in v1 is hard usable and strongly discourage people from using it. Sure we can add the code which handles _this_ particular case but that wouldn't make the whole thing more usable I strongly suspect. Maybe I am wrong and you can provide some specific examples. Is GFP_NOFAIL that common to matter? In any case we should balance between the code maintainability here. Adding more cruft into the allocator path is not free. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs