On Wed 21-02-18 12:54:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:18:35 -0800 Shakeel Butt <shake...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Christopher Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote:
> > > Another way to solve this is to switch the user context right?
> > >
> > > Isnt it possible to avoid these patches if do the allocation in another
> > > task context instead?
> > >
> > Sorry, can you please explain what you mean by 'switch the user
> > context'. Is there any example in kernel which does something similar?
> > Another way is by adding a field 'remote_memcg_to_charge' in
> > task_struct and set it before the allocation and in memcontrol.c,
> > first check if current->remote_memcg_to_charge is set otherwise use
> > the memcg of current. Also if we provide a wrapper to do that for the
> > user, there will be a lot less plumbing.
> > Please let me know if you prefer this approach.
> That would be a lot simpler. Passing function arguments via
> task_struct is a bit dirty but is sometimes sooo effective. You
> should've seen how much mess task_struct.journal_info avoided! And
Agreed, although from time to time people try to be too creative e.g. with
journal_info and surprising bugs come out of that :).
> And one always wonders whether we should do a local save/restore before
> modifying the task_struct field, so it nests.
> What do others think?
Sounds nice to me.
> Maybe we can rename task_struct.reclaim_state to `struct task_mm_state
> *task_mm_state", add remote_memcg_to_charge to struct task_mm_state and
> avoid bloating the task_struct?
Yeah, even better, but then we really need to make sure these things stack
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR