[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210181502270.30894@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Do we actually need to test PF_KTHREAD when current->mm == NULL?
> > Perhaps because of aio threads whcih temporarily adopt a userspace mm?
>
> I believe so. I remember I discussed this in the past with David
> Rientjes and he advised me to test for both.
>
PF_KTHREAD can do use_mm() to assume an ->mm but hopefully they aren't
allocating slab while doing so. Have you considered actually charging
current->mm->owner for that memory, though, since the kthread will have
freed the memory before unuse_mm() or otherwise have charged it on behalf
of a user process, i.e. only exempting PF_KTHREAD?
--
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