From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
serue@us.ibm.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v9)]
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:08:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4806C633.3000302@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080415195950.GA113@tv-sign.ru>
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/15, Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
>>> Let's suppose the process with a lot of threads does exit_group() and nobody
>>> else uses this ->mm. How many time we will re-assign mm->owner and iterate
>>> over the all threads in system ?
>>>
>> In general we won't get to the third loop, since one of the first two
>> loops (children or siblings) will find another mm user.
>
> Well yes, the second loop checks parent->children ... all sub-threads have
> the same parent.
>
> I'd suggest to use ->real_parent though. And the third loop could be
>
real_parent is for ptraced processes right?
> for_each_process(g) {
> c = g;
> do {
> if (!c->mm)
> continue;
> if (c->mm != mm)
> break;
> goto assign_new_owner;
> } while_each_thread(g, c);
> }
>
I had this loop earlier (inspired from zap_threads()), is this loop more
efficient than what we have?
> Still. can't we make mm->mm_users_list ?
>
I suspect that will be expensive to maintain. Specially with large number of
threads. I see a large space overhead and time overhead and additional
synchronization overhead. Apart from finding the next owner is there any other
advantage?
> Oleg.
>
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-17 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-14 14:13 [Fwd: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v9)] Balbir Singh
2008-04-14 14:49 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-14 16:04 ` Paul Menage
2008-04-14 19:36 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-14 21:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-15 0:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-15 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-04-15 18:13 ` Paul Menage
2008-04-15 19:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-04-17 3:38 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2008-04-17 11:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-04-17 16:34 ` Paul Menage
2008-04-17 16:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-04-17 17:40 ` Balbir Singh
2008-04-17 17:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-04-17 17:50 ` Paul Menage
2008-04-17 19:07 ` Balbir Singh
2008-04-17 17:49 ` Paul Menage
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4806C633.3000302@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox