Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:35:14 -0700 (PDT) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: mm_update_next_owner() should skip kthreads |
| |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 22-04-14 12:52:28, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 18-04-14 20:44:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > [...] > > > I do not even understand why do we have CONFIG_MM_OWNER, perhaps it should > > > die? > > > > I have to dig into history to check why it has been introduced in the > > first place. It might be possible it is not relevant anymore. > > There didn't seem to be any other user of CONFIG_MM_OWNER outside of > MEMCG so it seems that a separate config option seems like an overkill. > Regarding the mm->owner itself it is hard to live without it at the > moment. Most of the charging places do charge the current task_struct > but there are some that rely on mm and we would need mm->task mapping. > The last obstacle would be threads migration but that one should go away > with unified hierarchy AFAIR.
Balbir had another user for mm->owner in mmotm back in 2008, his memrlimit controller; but that didn't make it through to mainline.
Hugh
| |