Re: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations

[Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>]

On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 23:00 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> @@ -787,6 +788,8 @@ static int ptrace_bts_realloc(struct tas
>         current->mm->total_vm  -= old_size;
>         current->mm->locked_vm -= old_size;
>  
> +       mem_cgroup_update_as(current->mm, -old_size);
> +
>         if (size == 0)
>                 goto out;

I think splattering these things all over is probably a bad idea.

If you're going to do this, I think you need a couple of phases.  

1. update the vm_(un)acct_memory() functions to take an mm
2. start using them (or some other abstracted functions in place)
3. update the new functions for cgroups

It's a bit non-obvious why you do the mem_cgroup_update_as() calls in
the places that you do from context.

Having some other vm-abstracted functions will also keep you from
splattering mem_cgroup_update_as() across the tree.  That's a pretty bad
name. :)  ...update_mapped() or ...update_vm() might be a wee bit
better. 

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>