[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830809050903s7e1a1004i6b31660502c0dcf2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:03:49 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Daisuke Nishimura" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][mmotm]memcg: handle null dereference of mm->owner
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:40 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, I have a question to Balbir and Paul. (I'm sorry I missed the discussion.)
> Recently I wonder why we need MM_OWNER.
>
> - What's bad with thread's cgroup ?
Because lots of mm operations take place in a context where we don't
have a thread pointer, and hence no cgroup.
> - Why we can't disallow per-thread cgroup under memcg ?)
We can, but that's orthogonal - we still need to be able to get to
some thread (or a pointer directly in the mm to the cgroup, but with
multiple cgroup subsystems popping up that needed such a pointer, it
seems cleaner to have the owner pointer rather than adding multiple
separate cgroup subsystem pointers to mm.
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