[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpE_d9w9vSbcvfDLTeVpEmTFWN65gSSyLntZYF51Bov+hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:06:39 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: introduce process_reap system call
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:00 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:44 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If the task is dying and in the process of releasing its memory
> > > > + * then get its mm.
> > > > + */
> > > > + task_lock(task);
> > > > + if (task_will_free_mem(task) && (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) == 0) {
> > >
> > > task_will_free_mem() is fine here but I think in parallel we should
> > > optimize this function. At the moment it is traversing all the
> > > processes on the machine. It is very normal to have tens of thousands
> > > of processes on big machines, so it would be really costly when
> > > reaping a bunch of processes.
> >
> > Hmm. But I think we still need to make sure that the mm is not shared
> > with another non-dying process. IIUC that's the point of that
> > traversal. Am I mistaken?
>
> You are right. I am talking about efficiently finding all processes
> which are sharing mm (maybe linked into another list) instead of
> traversing all the processes on the system.
Oh, I see. I think that's a good idea but belongs to a separate patch
as an optimization for task_will_free_mem().
Thanks for reviewing and for good suggestions!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists