Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:38:58 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |