[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:0.022 / U:9.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site