Hi Jean-Philippe, On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:58:41 +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Slightly off the title. As we are moving to use cgroup to limit PASID > > allocations, it would be much simpler if we enforce on the current > > task. > > Yes I think we should do that. Is there a problem with charging the > process that does the PASID allocation even if the PASID indexes some > other mm? Besides complexity, my second concern is that we are sharing the misc cgroup controller with other resources that do not have such behavior. Cgroup v2 also has unified hierarchy which also requires coherent behavior among controllers. Thanks, Jacob
