[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:58:12 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> After the thread group leader exits, it's moved to init_css_state by
>> cgroup_exit(), thus all future charges from runnings threads would
>> be redirected to the init_css_set's subsystem.
>
> And its uncharges, which is more of the problem I was getting at
> earlier - surely when the mm is finally destroyed, all its virtual
> address space charges will be uncharged from the root cgroup rather
> than the correct cgroup, if we left the delayed group leader as the
> owner? Which is why I think the group leader optimization is unsafe.
It won't uncharge for the memory controller from the root cgroup since each page
has the mem_cgroup information associated with it. For other controllers,
they'll need to monitor exit() callbacks to know when the leader is dead :( (sigh).
Not having the group leader optimization can introduce big overheads (consider
thousands of tasks, with the group leader being the first one to exit).
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists