lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations
Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
>

I agree and I tried to avoid the splattering

> 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

There are other problems

1. vm_(un)acct_memory is conditionally dependent on VM_ACCOUNT. Look at
shmem_(un)acct_size for example
2. These routines are not called from all contexts that we care about (look at
insert_special_mapping())

> 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.
>

I am going to split mem_cgroup_update_as() to two routines with a better name. I
agree with you in principle about splattering, but please see my comments above

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-18 02:21    [W:0.163 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site