On Fri 18-04-14 20:44:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/18, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Fri 18-04-14 19:26:31, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 04/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmm. I seem to see a bug in this function, it can be fulled by use_mm, > > > > but I am not sure this can explain the problem. I'll send a patch. > > > > > > Untested, please review. But it really looks "obviously wrong", and note > > > that unuse_mm() doesn't do mm_update_next_owner(). (just in case, do not > > > confuse it with unuse_mm() in mm/swapfile.c). > > > > Both patches seem to be correct but I am missinng why they are marked as > > memcg: when they are touching generic mm_update_next_owner path. > > Well, this is because I didn't know which prefix should I use. I looked > at git-blame to see who changed this function, picked the random 733eda7ac > "memcg: clear mm->owner when last possible owner leaves" commit and copied > "memcg" from there. > > OTOH, mm->owner is used by mm/memcontrol.c, so perhaps the prefix is fine?
OK, I didn't realize memcg is the only user. > 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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
