From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 11:23:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150529152328.GM27479@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150529145739.GF22728@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Hello,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:57:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > "
> > > It also allows several control groups that are virtually grouped by
> > > mm_struct, to exist independent of the memory controller i.e., without
> > > adding mem_cgroup's for each controller, to mm_struct.
> > > "
> > > suggests it might have been intentional. That being said, I think it was
> >
> > I think he's talking about implmenting different controllers which may
> > want to add their own css pointer in mm_struct now wouldn't need to as
> > the mm is tagged with the owning task from which membership of all
> > controllers can be derived. I don't think that's something we need to
> > worry about. We haven't seen even a suggestion for such a controller
> > and even if that happens we'd be better off adding a separate field
> > for the new controller.
>
> Maybe I've just misunderstood. My understandig was that tasks sharing
> the mm could live in different cgroups while the memory would be bound
> by a shared memcg.
Hmm.... it specifically goes into explaining that it's about having
different controllers sharing the owner field.
"i.e., without adding mem_cgroup's for each controller, to mm_struct."
It seems fairly clear to me.
> > I'm a bit lost on what's cleared defined is actually changing. It's
> > not like userland had firm control over mm->owner. It was already a
> > crapshoot, no?
>
> OK so you creat a task A (leader) which clones several tasks Pn with
> CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD. Moving A around would control memcg
> membership while Pn could be moved around freely to control membership
> in other controllers (e.g. cpu to control shares). So it is something
> like moving threads separately.
Sure, it'd behave clearly in certain cases but then again you'd have
cases where how mm->owner changes isn't clear at all when seen from
the userland. e.g. When the original owner goes away, the assignment
of the next owner is essentially arbitrary. That's what I meant by
saying it was already a crapshoot. We should definitely document the
change but this isn't likely to be an issue. CLONE_VM &&
!CLONE_THREAD is an extreme corner case to begin with and even the
behavior there wasn't all that clearly defined.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-29 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-26 11:50 [RFC 0/3] get rid of mm_struct::owner Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 11:50 ` [RFC 1/3] memcg: restructure mem_cgroup_can_attach() Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 11:50 ` [RFC 2/3] memcg: Use mc.moving_task as the indication for charge moving Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 11:50 ` [RFC 3/3] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 14:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-26 15:11 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 17:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-27 14:48 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-28 21:07 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-29 12:08 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-29 13:10 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-29 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-29 14:07 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-29 14:57 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-29 15:23 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2015-05-29 15:26 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 16:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-05-26 17:22 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-26 17:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-05-27 9:43 ` 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=20150529152328.GM27479@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).