[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204241322390.753@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/23] kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> I think memcg is not necessarily wrong. That is because threads in a process
> share an address space, and you will eventually need to map a page to deliver
> it to userspace. The mm struct points you to the owner of that.
>
> But that is not necessarily true for things that live in the kernel address
> space.
>
> Do you view this differently ?
>
Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that
process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's
no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different
memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs. This is
consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread
mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well.
--
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