From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: alexjlzheng@gmail.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, brauner@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
tandersen@netflix.com, willy@infradead.org, mjguzik@gmail.com,
alexjlzheng@tencent.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: optimize the redundant loop of mm_update_next_owner()
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:23:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240626152340.GA17644@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZnU-wlFE5usvo9ah@tiehlicka>
On 06/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 20-06-24 19:30:19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Or even better. Can't we finally kill mm_update_next_owner() and turn the
> > ugly mm->owner into mm->mem_cgroup ?
>
> Yes, dropping the mm->owner should be a way to go. Replacing that by
> mem_cgroup sounds like an improvemnt. I have a vague recollection that
> this has some traps on the way. E.g. tasks sharing the mm but living in
> different cgroups. Things have changes since the last time I've checked
> and for example memcg charge migration on task move will be deprecated
> soon so chances are that there are less roadblocks on the way.
OK, thanks...
So if we can't do this right now, can we at least cleanup it? To me it looks
just ugly.
We don't need get/put_task_struct. The "retry" logic is obviously suboptimal.
The search in the children/siblings doesn't handle zombie leaders.
I'll send 2 (hopefully simple) patches in a minute, could you review? I have
no idea how to test them...
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-26 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-20 15:27 alexjlzheng
2024-06-20 17:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-06-21 8:50 ` Michal Hocko
2024-06-25 22:21 ` Andrew Morton
2024-06-26 6:43 ` Jinliang Zheng
2024-06-26 15:23 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2024-06-27 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240626152340.GA17644@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexjlzheng@gmail.com \
--cc=alexjlzheng@tencent.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=tandersen@netflix.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox