Re: [RFC 3/3] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Johannes, Michal.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:10:11AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:50:06PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Please note that this patch introduces a USER VISIBLE CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR.
> > Without mm->owner _all_ tasks associated with the mm_struct would
> > initiate memcg migration while previously only owner of the mm_struct
> > could do that. The original behavior was awkward though because the user
> > task didn't have any means to find out the current owner (esp. after
> > mm_update_next_owner) so the migration behavior was not well defined
> > in general.
> > New cgroup API (unified hierarchy) will discontinue tasks file which
> > means that migrating threads will no longer be possible. In such a case
> > having CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD could emulate the thread behavior
> > but this patch prevents from isolating memcg controllers from others.
> > Nevertheless I am not convinced such a use case would really deserve
> > complications on the memcg code side.
> 
> I think such a change is okay.  The memcg semantics of moving threads
> with the same mm into separate groups have always been arbitrary.  No
> reasonable behavior can be expected of this, so what sane real life
> usecase would rely on it?

I suppose that making mm always follow the threadgroup leader should
be fine, right?  While this wouldn't make any difference in the
unified hierarchy, I think this would make more sense for traditional
hierarchies.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/