[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][-mm] Memory controller add mm->owner
    Paul Menage wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Balbir Singh <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> - in the worst case, it's not going to be worse than doing a
    >> >> for_each_thread() loop
    >> >>
    >> This will have to be the common case, since you never know what combination of
    >> clone calls did CLONE_VM and what did CLONE_THREAD. At exit time, we need to pay
    >> a for_each_process() overhead.
    > I'm not convinced of this. All we have to do is find some other
    > process p where p->mm == current->mm and make it the new owner.
    > Exactly what sequence of clone() calls was used to cause the sharing
    > isn't really relevant. I really think that a suitable candidate will
    > be found amongst your children or your first sibling in 99.9% of those
    > cases where more than one process is using an mm.

    Hmmm.. the 99.9% of the time is just guess work (not measured, could be possibly
    true). I see and understand your code below. But before I try and implement
    something like that, I was wondering why zap_threads() does not have that
    heuristic. That should explain my inhibition.

    Can anyone elaborate on zap_threads further?

    Warm Regards,
    Balbir Singh
    Linux Technology Center

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-26 12:47    [W:0.023 / U:1.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site