Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups

[Paul Menage]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  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.

Yes, but we don't have mm->owner, which is what I was proposing -
mm->owner would be a pointer typically to the mm's thread group
leader. It would remove the need to have to have pointers for the
various different cgroup subsystems that need to act on an mm rather
than a task_struct, since then you could use
mm->owner->cgroups[subsys_id].

But this is kind of orthogonal to whether virtual address space limits
should be a separate cgroup subsystem.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/