On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:05:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 29-07-15 09:14:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > 3) fail mem_cgroup_can_attach if we are trying to migrate a task sharing
> > > mm_struct with a process
On Wed 29-07-15 09:14:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > 3) fail mem_cgroup_can_attach if we are trying to migrate a task sharing
> > mm_struct with a process outside of the tset. If I understand the
> > tset properly this would
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
>
> OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
> thinking about the patch before.
On Tue 14-07-15 17:18:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
>
> OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
> thinking about the patch before. clone(CLONE_VM) without
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:05:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 29-07-15 09:14:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
3) fail mem_cgroup_can_attach if we are trying to migrate a task sharing
mm_struct with a process outside of
On Tue 14-07-15 17:18:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
thinking about the patch before. clone(CLONE_VM) without
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
thinking about the patch before. clone(CLONE_VM)
On Wed 29-07-15 09:14:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
3) fail mem_cgroup_can_attach if we are trying to migrate a task sharing
mm_struct with a process outside of the tset. If I understand the
tset properly this would require
On Sat 11-07-15 10:09:06, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
[...]
> Why can't we make root_mem_cgroup statically allocated? AFAICS it's a
> common practice - e.g. see blkcg_root, root_task_group.
It's not that easy. mem_cgroup doesn't have a fixed size. It depends
on the number of online nodes. I haven't
On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
thinking about the patch before. clone(CLONE_VM) without CLONE_THREAD is
really nasty and it will easily lockup
On Fri 10-07-15 16:05:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more.
OK so the main issue is quite simple but I have completely missed it when
thinking about the patch before. clone(CLONE_VM) without CLONE_THREAD is
really nasty and it will easily lockup the
On Sat 11-07-15 10:09:06, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
[...]
Why can't we make root_mem_cgroup statically allocated? AFAICS it's a
common practice - e.g. see blkcg_root, root_task_group.
It's not that easy. mem_cgroup doesn't have a fixed size. It depends
on the number of online nodes. I haven't
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-07-15 10:54:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 10-07-15 10:54:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more. Please
ignore this and the follow up patch for now. If others are OK with the
cleanups preceding this patch I will repost with the changes based on
the feedback so far and let them merge into mm tree before I settle
with this much more
On Fri 10-07-15 10:54:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > > @@ -474,7 +519,7 @@ static inline void
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > > @@ -474,7 +519,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct
> > > mm_struct *mm,
> > >
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
@@ -474,7 +519,7 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct
mm_struct *mm,
return;
On Fri 10-07-15 10:54:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
@@ -474,7 +519,7 @@ static inline void
JFYI: I've found some more issues while hamerring this more. Please
ignore this and the follow up patch for now. If others are OK with the
cleanups preceding this patch I will repost with the changes based on
the feedback so far and let them merge into mm tree before I settle
with this much more
On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> I like the gist of this patch. A few comments below.
>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > +/**
> > + * mm_inherit_memcg - Initialize mm_struct::memcg from an existing
> > mm_struct
> > + * @newmm: new mm
On Wed 08-07-15 20:32:51, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
I like the gist of this patch. A few comments below.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
+/**
+ * mm_inherit_memcg - Initialize mm_struct::memcg from an existing
mm_struct
+ * @newmm: new mm struct
+ *
I like the gist of this patch. A few comments below.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 1977c2a553ac..3ed9c0abc9f5 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -870,7 +870,7 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct
From: Michal Hocko
mm_struct::owner keeps track of the task which is in charge for the
specific mm. This is usually the thread group leader of the process but
there are exotic cases where this doesn't hold.
The most prominent one is when separate tasks (not in the same thread
group) share the
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
mm_struct::owner keeps track of the task which is in charge for the
specific mm. This is usually the thread group leader of the process but
there are exotic cases where this doesn't hold.
The most prominent one is when separate tasks (not in the same thread
I like the gist of this patch. A few comments below.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 1977c2a553ac..3ed9c0abc9f5 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -870,7 +870,7 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
26 matches
Mail list logo
