On Tue 22-04-14 12:52:28, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 18-04-14 20:44:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote: [...] > > I do not even understand why do we have CONFIG_MM_OWNER, perhaps it should > > die? > > I have to dig into history to check why it has been introduced in the > first place. It might be possible it is not relevant anymore.
There didn't seem to be any other user of CONFIG_MM_OWNER outside of MEMCG so it seems that a separate config option seems like an overkill. Regarding the mm->owner itself it is hard to live without it at the moment. Most of the charging places do charge the current task_struct but there are some that rely on mm and we would need mm->task mapping. The last obstacle would be threads migration but that one should go away with unified hierarchy AFAIR. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
