[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271239340.22162@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.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
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > 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 ?
>
No, because an mm may have been detached in the exit path by running
exit_mm(). We'd certainly hope that there are no slab allocations
following that point, though, but you'd still need to test current->mm.
--
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