From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2H5BNaE021683 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:11:23 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2H5AUZP2904292 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:10:30 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2H5AT7k021449 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:10:29 +1100 Message-ID: <47DDFCEA.3030207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:38:58 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups References: <20080316172942.8812.56051.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <6599ad830803161626q1fcf261bta52933bb5e7a6bdd@mail.gmail.com> <47DDCDA7.4020108@cn.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830803161857r6d01f962vfd0f570e6124ab24@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830803161857r6d01f962vfd0f570e6124ab24@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Menage Cc: Li Zefan , linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: Paul Menage wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Li Zefan 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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org