[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] exit: Make unlikely case in mm_update_next_owner() more scalable
On 27.04.2018 21:05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Michal Hocko <> writes:
>> On Thu 26-04-18 21:28:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 26-04-18 11:19:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Michal Hocko <> writes:
>>>>> I've had a patch to remove owner few years back. It needed some work
>>>>> to finish but maybe that would be a better than try to make
>>>>> non-scalable thing suck less.
>>>> I have a question. Would it be reasonable to just have a mm->memcg?
>>>> That would appear to be the simplest solution to the problem.
>>> I do not remember details. Have to re-read the whole thing again. Hope
>>> to get to this soon but with the current jet lag and backlog from the
>>> LSFMM I rather not promis anything. Going with mm->memcg would be the
>>> most simple of course but I have a very vague recollection that it was
>>> not possible. Maybe I misremember...
>> Just for the record, the last version where I've tried to remove owner
>> was posted here:
>> I didn't get to remember details yet, but the primary problem was the
>> task migration between cgroups and the nasty case when different thread
>> grounds share the mm. At some point I just suggested to not care
>> about semantic of these weird threads all that much. We can either
>> migrate all tasks sharing the mm struct or just keep the inconsistency.
>> Anyway, removing this ugliness would be so cool!
> I suspect the only common user of CLONE_VM today is vfork. And I do
> think it is crazy to migrate a process that has called vfork before
> calling exec. Other useses of CLONE_VM seem even crazier.
> I think the easiest change to make in mem_cgroup_can_attach would
> be just to change the test for when charges are migrated. AKA
> from:
> if (mm->owner == p) {
> ....
> }
> to
> if (mem_cgroup_from_task(p) == mm->memcg) {
> ...
> }
> That allows using mm->memcg with no new limitations on when migration
> can be called. In crazy cases that has the potential to change which
> memcgroup the charges are accounted to, but the choice is already
> somewhat arbitrary so I don't think that will be a problem. Especially
> given that mm_update_next_owner does not migrate charges if the next
> owner is in a different memory cgroup. A mm with tasks using it in
> two different cgroups is already questionable if not outright
> problematic.
> Kirill Tkhai do you think you would be able adapt Michal Hoko's old
> patch at
> that replaces mm->owner with mm->memcg?

I was at vacation. Sorry for the late reply.

> We probably want to outlaw migrating an mm where we are not migrating
> all of the mm->users eventually. Just because that case is crazy.
> But it doesn't look like we need to do that to fix the memory control
> group data structures.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-03 12:53    [W:0.175 / U:5.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site