From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754862AbYDHC4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:56:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751385AbYDHC4Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:56:24 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57540 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751241AbYDHC4X (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:56:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:55:49 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, yamamoto@valinux.co.jp, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8) Message-Id: <20080407195549.beca617e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <47FADAFD.7030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080404080544.26313.38199.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080407150956.9a29573a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47FADAFD.7030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:09:57 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:35:44 +0530 > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > >> 1. Add mm->owner change callbacks using cgroups > >> > >> ... > >> > >> +config MM_OWNER > >> + bool "Enable ownership of mm structure" > >> + help > >> + This option enables mm_struct's to have an owner. The advantage > >> + of this approach is that it allows for several independent memory > >> + based cgroup controllers to co-exist independently without too > >> + much space overhead > >> + > >> + This feature adds fork/exit overhead. So enable this only if > >> + you need resource controllers > > > > Do we really want to offer this option to people? It's rather a low-level > > thing and it's likely to cause more confusion than it's worth. Remember > > that most kernels get to our users via kernel vendors - to what will they > > be setting this config option? > > > > I suspect that this kernel option will not be explicitly set it. This option > will be selected by other config options (memory controller, swap namespace, > revoke*) I believe that the way to do this is to not give the option a `help' section. Tht makes it a Kconfig-internal-only thing.