On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
Would it? Other than the basic cgroup boilerplate, the only real
duplication that I could see would be that there'd need to be an
additional per-mm pointer back to the cgroup. (Which could be avoided
if we added a single per-mm pointer back to the "owning" task, which
would generally be the mm's thread group leader, so that you could go
quickly from an mm to a set of cgroup subsystems).
And the advantage would that you'd be able to more easily pick/choose
which bits of control you use (and pay for).
Paul
--
