From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <47CFD957.3060402@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:45:27 +0900 From: Daisuke Nishimura MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cgroup swap subsystem References: <47CE36A9.3060204@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20080305155329.60e02f48.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080305155329.60e02f48.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: Hi. > At first look, remembering mm struct is not very good. > Remembering swap controller itself is better. The swap_cgroup when the page(and page_cgroup) is allocated and the swap_cgroup when the page is going to be swapped out may be different by swap_cgroup_move_task(), so I think swap_cgroup to be charged should be determined at the point of swapout. Instead of pointing mm_struct from page_cgroup, it would be better to determine the mm_struct which the page to be swapped out is belongs to by rmap, and charge swap_cgroup of the mm_struct. In this implementation, I don't need to add new member to page_cgroup. What do you think ? Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. -- 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