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

[Michal Hocko]

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.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/