Re: [RFC][-mm] Memory controller add mm->owner

[Paul Menage]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Balbir Singh
<balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > OK, so we don't need to handle this for NPTL apps - but for anything
>  > still using LinuxThreads or manually constructed clone() calls that
>  > use CLONE_VM without CLONE_PID, this could still be an issue.
>
>  CLONE_PID?? Do you mean CLONE_THREAD?

Yes, sorry - CLONE_THREAD.

>
>  For the case you mentioned, mm->owner is a moving target and we don't want to
>  spend time finding the successor, that can be expensive when threads start
>  exiting one-by-one quickly and when the number of threads are high. I wonder if
>  there is an efficient way to find mm->owner in that case.
>

But:

- running a high-threadcount LinuxThreads process is by definition
inefficient and expensive (hence the move to NPTL)

- any potential performance hit is only paid at exit time

- in the normal case, any of your children or one of your siblings
will be a suitable alternate owner

- in the worst case, it's not going to be worse than doing a
for_each_thread() loop

so I don't think this would be a major problem

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/