On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:27 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry. try another sentense.. > > I think cgroup itself is designed to be able to be used without middleware. True, but it shouldn't be hostile to middleware, since I think that automated use will be much more common. (And certainly if you count the number of servers :-) ) > IOW, whether using middleware or not is the matter of users not of developpers. > There will be a system that system admin controlles all and move tasks by hand. > ex)...personal notebooks etc.. > You think so? I think that at the very least users will be using tools based around config scripts, rule engines and libcgroup, if not a persistent daemon. >> If the common mode for middleware starting a new cgroup is fork() / >> move / exec() then after the fork(), the child will be sharing pages >> with the main daemon process. So the move will pull all the daemon's >> memory into the new cgroup >> > My patch (this patch) just moves Private Anon page to new cgroup. (of mapcount=1) OK, well that makes it more reasonable regarding the above problem. But I can still see problems if, say, a single thread moves into a new cgroup, you move the entire memory. Perhaps you should only do so if the mm->owner changes task? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers