Re: [RFC 3/3] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello,

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:45:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Sure but we are talking about processes here. They just happen to share
> mm. And this is exactly the behavior change I am talking about... With

Are we talking about CLONE_VM w/o CLONE_THREAD?  ie. two threadgroups
sharing the same VM?

> the owner you could emulate "threads" with this patch you cannot
> anymore. IMO we shouldn't allow for that but just reading the original
> commit message (cf475ad28ac35) which has added mm->owner:
> "
> It also allows several control groups that are virtually grouped by
> mm_struct, to exist independent of the memory controller i.e., without
> adding mem_cgroup's for each controller, to mm_struct.
> "
> suggests it might have been intentional. That being said, I think it was

I think he's talking about implmenting different controllers which may
want to add their own css pointer in mm_struct now wouldn't need to as
the mm is tagged with the owning task from which membership of all
controllers can be derived.  I don't think that's something we need to
worry about.  We haven't seen even a suggestion for such a controller
and even if that happens we'd be better off adding a separate field
for the new controller.

> a mistake back at the time and we should move on to a saner model. But I
> also believe we should be really vocal when the user visible behavior
> changes. If somebody really asks for the previous behavior I would
> insist on a _strong_ usecase.

I'm a bit lost on what's cleared defined is actually changing.  It's
not like userland had firm control over mm->owner.  It was already a
crapshoot, no?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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>