Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: mm_update_next_owner() should skip kthreads

[Hugh Dickins]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.

Balbir had another user for mm->owner in mmotm back in 2008, his
memrlimit controller; but that didn't make it through to mainline.

Hugh
--
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/