From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:39:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Clarify mem_cgroup lock handling and avoid races. In-Reply-To: <20080220133742.94a0b1b6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20080219215431.1aa9fa8a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080220100333.a014083c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080220133742.94a0b1b6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" , "riel@redhat.com" List-ID: On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:14:58 +0000 (GMT) > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > What's needed, I think, is something in struct mm, a flag or a reserved value > > in mm->mem_cgroup, to say don't do any of this mem_cgroup stuff on me; and a cgroup > > fs interface to set that, in the same way as force_empty is done. > > I agree here. I believe we need "no charge" flag at least to the root group. > For root group, it's better to have boot option if not complicated. I expect we'll end up wanting both the cgroupfs interface and the boot option for the root; but yes, for now, the boot option would be enough. Hugh -- 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