lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> It will be code duplication to make it a new subsystem,
>
> 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).
>

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. BTW, the reason by we directly add the mm_struct to mem_cgroup
mapping is that there are contexts from where only the mm_struct is known (when
we charge/uncharge). Assuming that current->mm's mem_cgorup is the one we want
to charge/uncharge is incorrect.

> And the advantage would that you'd be able to more easily pick/choose
> which bits of control you use (and pay for).

I am not sure I understand your proposal fully. But, if it can help provide the
flexibility you are referring to, I am all ears.

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-17 06:13    [W:0.063 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site