[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod6mb91o9pW57suovtW1UQ8G8j=2S3Tjoqzjh6L+jqz-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:26:59 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:22 AM Roman Gushchin
<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
[...]
> > > struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > > @@ -3008,19 +3054,26 @@ __always_inline struct obj_cgroup *get_obj_cgroup_from_current(void)
> > >
> > > if (in_task()) {
> > > memcg = current->active_memcg;
> > > + if (unlikely(memcg))
> > > + goto from_memcg;
> > >
> > > - /* Memcg to charge can't be determined. */
> > > - if (likely(!memcg) && (!current->mm || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)))
> >
> > The checks for current->mm and PF_KTHREAD seem to be gone completely after
> > the patch, was that intended and why?
>
> There is no need for those anymore because it's as cheap or cheaper
> to check task->objcg for being NULL. Those were primarily used to rule out
> kernel threads allocations early.
>
I have the same understanding but please correct my suspicions here.
We can echo the kernel thread's pid to cgroup.procs which have
PF_NO_SETAFFINITY and thus this will cause the lower bit of the kernel
thread's task->objcg to be set. Please correct me if I am missing
something.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists