From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx185.postini.com [74.125.245.185]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BEDCC6B0006 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <515E86DA.1090907@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:10:02 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] cgroup: make sure parent won't be destroyed before its children References: <515BF233.6070308@huawei.com> <515BF2A4.1070703@huawei.com> <20130404113750.GH29911@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130404133706.GA9425@htj.dyndns.org> <20130404152028.GK29911@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130404152213.GL9425@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130404152213.GL9425@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Michal Hocko , Li Zefan , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Cgroups , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Johannes Weiner On 04/04/2013 07:22 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> But what harm does an additional reference do? >> >> No harm at all. I just wanted to be sure that this is not yet another >> "for memcg" hack. So if this is useful for other controllers then I have >> no objections of course. > > I think it makes sense in general, so let's do it in cgroup core. I > suppose it'd be easier for this to be routed together with other memcg > changes? > > Thanks. > You guys seems already settled, but FWIW I agree with Tejun here. It makes sense from a design point of view for a cgroup to pin its parent. cgroup core it is. -- 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