linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: mm_update_next

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1404221432150.6603@eggly.anvils>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Chiang <pchiang@...dia.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"ccross@...roid.com" <ccross@...roid.com>,
	"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
	"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"guillaume@...infr.org" <guillaume@...infr.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: mm_update_next_owner() should skip kthreads

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-04-14 12:52:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 18-04-14 20:44:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> [...]
> > > I do not even understand why do we have CONFIG_MM_OWNER, perhaps it should
> > > die?
> > 
> > I have to dig into history to check why it has been introduced in the
> > first place. It might be possible it is not relevant anymore.
> 
> There didn't seem to be any other user of CONFIG_MM_OWNER outside of
> MEMCG so it seems that a separate config option seems like an overkill.
> Regarding the mm->owner itself it is hard to live without it at the
> moment. Most of the charging places do charge the current task_struct
> but there are some that rely on mm and we would need mm->task mapping.
> The last obstacle would be threads migration but that one should go away
> with unified hierarchy AFAIR.

Balbir had another user for mm->owner in mmotm back in 2008, his
memrlimit controller; but that didn't make it through to mainline.

Hugh
--
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/