[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830803280404i475c9824i31741af5a8ebf376@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:04:17 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"Sudhir Kumar" <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v2)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > How about changing this css_get()/css_put() from accounting against mm_struct
> > to accouting against task_struct ?
> > It seems simpler way after this mm->owner change.
>
> But the reason why we account the mem_cgroup is that we don't want the
> mem_cgroup to be deleted. I hope you meant mem_cgroup instead of mm_struct.
>
If there are any tasks in the cgroup then the cgroup can't be deleted,
and hence the mem_cgroup is safe.
css_get()/css_put() is only needed when you have a reference from a
non-task object that needs to keep the mem_cgroup alive, which is no
longer the case for mm_struct once we have mm->owner.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists