[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50811903.9000105@parallels.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:10:27 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 10/19/2012 02:06 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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?
>
I always charge current->mm->owner.
--
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