[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FEAD351.2030203@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:33:05 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure
>>
>> Nothing, but I also don't see how to prevent that.
>
> You can test for current->flags & PF_KTHREAD following the check for
> in_interrupt() and return true, it's what you were trying to do with the
> check for !current->mm.
>
am I right to believe that if not in interrupt context - already ruled
out - and !(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD), I am guaranteed to have a mm
context, and thus, don't need to test against it ?
--
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