From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:33:05 +0400 Message-ID: <4FEAD351.2030203@parallels.com> References: <1340633728-12785-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340633728-12785-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FE97E31.3010201@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: David Rientjes Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Lameter , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Tejun Heo , Pekka Enberg >> >> Nothing, but I also don't see how to prevent that. > > You can test for current->flags & PF_KTHREAD following the check for > in_interrupt() and return true, it's what you were trying to do with the > check for !current->mm. > am I right to believe that if not in interrupt context - already ruled out - and !(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD), I am guaranteed to have a mm context, and thus, don't need to test against it ?