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
|  |