[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47FADAFD.7030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:09:57 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org, hugh@...itas.com,
skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yamamoto@...inux.co.jp,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
taka@...inux.co.jp, linux-mm@...ck.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8)
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:35:44 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> 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*)
>> config CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
>> bool "Memory Resource Controller for Control Groups"
>> depends on CGROUPS && RESOURCE_COUNTERS
>> + select MM_OWNER
>
> Presumably they'll always be setting it to "y" if they are enabling cgroups
> at all.
>
>> --- linux-2.6.25-rc8/kernel/cgroup.c~memory-controller-add-mm-owner 2008-04-03 22:43:27.000000000 +0530
>> +++ linux-2.6.25-rc8-balbir/kernel/cgroup.c 2008-04-03 22:43:27.000000000 +0530
>> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ static int root_count;
>> * be called.
>> */
>> static int need_forkexit_callback;
>> +static int need_mm_owner_callback;
>
> I suppose these should be __read_mostly.
>
Yes, good point. I'll send out v9 with this fix.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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