[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205772790.18916.17.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:53:10 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space
allocations
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 23:00 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> @@ -787,6 +788,8 @@ static int ptrace_bts_realloc(struct tas
> current->mm->total_vm -= old_size;
> current->mm->locked_vm -= old_size;
>
> + mem_cgroup_update_as(current->mm, -old_size);
> +
> if (size == 0)
> goto out;
I think splattering these things all over is probably a bad idea.
If you're going to do this, I think you need a couple of phases.
1. update the vm_(un)acct_memory() functions to take an mm
2. start using them (or some other abstracted functions in place)
3. update the new functions for cgroups
It's a bit non-obvious why you do the mem_cgroup_update_as() calls in
the places that you do from context.
Having some other vm-abstracted functions will also keep you from
splattering mem_cgroup_update_as() across the tree. That's a pretty bad
name. :) ...update_mapped() or ...update_vm() might be a wee bit
better.
-- Dave
--
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