On Tue 22-04-14 14:35:14, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Michal Hocko wrote: > > 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. > > Balbir had another user for mm->owner in mmotm back in 2008, his > memrlimit controller; but that didn't make it through to mainline.
I see, thanks for the reference, Hugh! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
