lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-23 00:01    [W:0.049 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site