Paul Menage wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>  I understand the per-mm pointer overhead back to the cgroup. I don't understand
>>  the part about adding a per-mm pointer back to the "owning" task. We already
>>  have task->mm.
> 
> Yes, but we don't have mm->owner, which is what I was proposing -
> mm->owner would be a pointer typically to the mm's thread group
> leader. It would remove the need to have to have pointers for the
> various different cgroup subsystems that need to act on an mm rather
> than a task_struct, since then you could use
> mm->owner->cgroups[subsys_id].
> 

Aaahh.. Yes.. mm->owner might be a good idea. The only thing we'll need to
handle is when mm->owner dies (I think the thread group is still kept around).
The other disadvantage is the double dereferencing, which should not be all that
bad.

quoted text
> But this is kind of orthogonal to whether virtual address space limits
> should be a separate cgroup subsystem.
> 

Yes, sure.


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/