On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > I think memcg is not necessarily wrong. That is because threads in a process > share an address space, and you will eventually need to map a page to deliver > it to userspace. The mm struct points you to the owner of that. > > But that is not necessarily true for things that live in the kernel address > space. > > Do you view this differently ? > Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs. This is consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>