From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v3) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:06:12 -0700" <6599ad830803312306l59fabaa0o2f62feb0d59b2ce3@mail.gmail.com> References: <6599ad830803312306l59fabaa0o2f62feb0d59b2ce3@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20080401062427.A3E785A05@siro.lan> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:24:27 +0900 (JST) From: yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: menage@google.com Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi > wrote: > > > > changing mm->owner without notifying controllers makes it difficult to use. > > can you provide a notification mechanism? > > > > Yes, I think that call will need to be in the task_lock() critical > section in which we update mm->owner. > > Right now I think the only user that needs to be notified at that > point is Balbir's virtual address limits controller. > > Paul i have some code for which i might want to use mm->owner. it does somewhat complicated things like acquiring mm_sem and traversing ptes in its ->attach hook. (if you want to read the code, search "Subject: [RFC][PATCH] another swap controller for cgroup" in ML archive.) probably i don't need to use mm->owner, but it's better if mm->owner can handle more cases anyway. YAMAMOTO Takashi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org