[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140422132102.GN29311@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:21:02 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: 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 22-04-14 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.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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