[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180426192818.GX17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:28:18 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
mingo@...nel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@...omium.org, riel@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@...il.com,
hoeun.ryu@...il.com, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, gs051095@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] exit: Make unlikely case in mm_update_next_owner()
more scalable
On Thu 26-04-18 11:19:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > I've had a patch to remove owner few years back. It needed some work
> > to finish but maybe that would be a better than try to make
> > non-scalable thing suck less.
>
> I have a question. Would it be reasonable to just have a mm->memcg?
> That would appear to be the simplest solution to the problem.
I do not remember details. Have to re-read the whole thing again. Hope
to get to this soon but with the current jet lag and backlog from the
LSFMM I rather not promis anything. Going with mm->memcg would be the
most simple of course but I have a very vague recollection that it was
not possible. Maybe I misremember...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists