From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx171.postini.com [74.125.245.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55CB46B0062 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50811903.9000105@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:10:27 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/14] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121017151214.e3d2aa3b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <507FC8E3.8020006@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg On 10/19/2012 02:06 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > >>> Do we actually need to test PF_KTHREAD when current->mm == NULL? >>> Perhaps because of aio threads whcih temporarily adopt a userspace mm? >> >> I believe so. I remember I discussed this in the past with David >> Rientjes and he advised me to test for both. >> > > PF_KTHREAD can do use_mm() to assume an ->mm but hopefully they aren't > allocating slab while doing so. Have you considered actually charging > current->mm->owner for that memory, though, since the kthread will have > freed the memory before unuse_mm() or otherwise have charged it on behalf > of a user process, i.e. only exempting PF_KTHREAD? > I always charge current->mm->owner. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org