Received: by 10.192.165.148 with SMTP id m20csp2526249imm; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/YoSnH2EFNSpjiPCxTnT9C1H2DmPHX3eyUk0Y8PZPPJUjOwQW4wJvjSzy4y+ymORdNCLUY X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:70c4:: with SMTP id l4-v6mr34827497plt.382.1524771058652; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524771058; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=NpR0i/7/hSFPlL5gSNHiuSJnjfF6fX0oYjXs3cIsUNqlo0wTKsg+tVWku41QQKNAWV 6ozb/587SbohOn0LpbZsAH0tXJ6NOHaNO3WtaJv+2lW/Jdtgs31pWpAbdgTrtLtSNIgq zmoMTfh5BKCPlQvKF8TWNrzrIEOso8392MFGYgGfe5PDYZtzNeYZa3gin/tm2tguPWYj nGItnAIr4cVyMeOLpidl9k3uvkkZ+19P2+d1QeEEBiJYhV3eDbzrFp/N0lWvtk5/6oqL t4xOFgqbWYJeU7HrslPSZmebAVwlBNanaqldw9HLRzQlrJNPScJTEvC2kmofBNUcSn6R px3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=aPemj6MFSmVGPJljIkRXoL/LGOpCvtS7c6QjBKQjMLE=; b=mRbH/5oO0/LGoDLjyLXIchsF6+LfMrjitDKKby//wW/N3LwRvw4eJxHMdxsdcWRfSs H7EvBX0nGzVbo3ykODaT3a36CqFQV1I0r4roy+mgIrSvGAx+mEQa+uZVLbMUb/UqF8T8 nPeb+KBjLZG6SDUgrcLU4l0kq8/O9u544pQYNkD/I4j7Bb0j37z6mrTtmL/5kyFm+vHs ua6+0bACayFsmp26/N4ArfN+S8xvRaR/Z3DvjWIDCu5vSscB2623qQQCDp4bB6mcOAcW zrqfXT/00tfo6VA7rn8VCKZV4HTSyygmrh6vqfGDHBqaIGoDHaqQq2QkcaLfBzk42c5y tdRg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 30-v6si17184503plf.104.2018.04.26.12.30.44; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755228AbeDZT2Y (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:28:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39660 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752000AbeDZT2X (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:28:23 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A7BABCC; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 21:28:18 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Kirill Tkhai , akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org, riel@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@gmail.com, hoeun.ryu@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, gs051095@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] exit: Make unlikely case in mm_update_next_owner() more scalable Message-ID: <20180426192818.GX17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <152473763015.29458.1131542311542381803.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20180426130700.GP17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87efj2q6sq.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87efj2q6sq.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 26-04-18 11:19:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > I've had a patch to remove owner few years back. It needed some work > > to finish but maybe that would be a better than try to make > > non-scalable thing suck less. > > I have a question. Would it be reasonable to just have a mm->memcg? > That would appear to be the simplest solution to the problem. I do not remember details. Have to re-read the whole thing again. Hope to get to this soon but with the current jet lag and backlog from the LSFMM I rather not promis anything. Going with mm->memcg would be the most simple of course but I have a very vague recollection that it was not possible. Maybe I misremember... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs