* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-12-01 13:30:30]: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:51:35 +0530 > Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ok. Then should we remove the unused code which simply checks for thread group > > leader but does nothing? > > > > Thanks > > Nikanth > > > Hmm, it seem that code is obsolete. thanks. > Balbir, how do you think ? > > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Anyway we have to visit here, again. Sorry, I did not review this patch. The correct thing was nikanth did at first, move this to can_attach(). Why would we allow threads to exist in different groups, but still mark them as being accounted to the thread group leader. It can be a bit confusing for end users, it can be helpful when all controllers are mounted together. I agree we did not do anything useful in move_task(). The correct check now, should be for mm->owner. If the common case is going to be that memory and cpu are mounted together, then this patch is correct, but it can be confusing to users who look at tasks/threads, but as the threads consume memory, the accounting will happen with mm->owner. -- Balbir _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
