[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 17/23] kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> I think memcg is not necessarily wrong. That is because threads in a process
> share an address space, and you will eventually need to map a page to deliver
> it to userspace. The mm struct points you to the owner of that.
> But that is not necessarily true for things that live in the kernel address
> space.
> Do you view this differently ?

Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that
process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's
no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different
memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs. This is
consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread
mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-24 22:31    [W:0.094 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site