Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:55:58 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v3) |
| |
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >> This patch removes the mem_cgroup member from mm_struct and instead adds >> an owner. This approach was suggested by Paul Menage. The advantage of >> this approach is that, once the mm->owner is known, using the subsystem >> id, the cgroup can be determined. It also allows several control groups >> that are virtually grouped by mm_struct, to exist independent of the memory >> controller i.e., without adding mem_cgroup's for each controller, >> to mm_struct. >> >> A new config option CONFIG_MM_OWNER is added and the memory resource >> controller selects this config option. >> >> NOTE: This patch was developed on top of 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 and is applied on top >> of the memory-controller-move-to-own-slab patch (which is already present >> in the Andrew's patchset). >> >> I am indebted to Paul Menage for the several reviews of this patchset >> and helping me make it lighter and simpler. >> >> This patch was tested on a powerpc box, by running a task under the memory >> resource controller and moving it across groups at a constant interval. >> >> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- > > changing mm->owner without notifying controllers makes it difficult to use. > can you provide a notification mechanism?
But mm->owner is just a way to get to the correct cgroup and that does not change when mm->owner changes. Do we really need this notification? For the virtual memory controller, move_task() is sufficient, not sure why mm->owner is required.
-- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL
| |