On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:20:49 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, KAMEZAWA. > > > > @@ -5460,8 +5460,9 @@ static void mem_cgroup_clear_mc(void) > > > > > > static int mem_cgroup_can_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, > > > struct cgroup *cgroup, > > > - struct task_struct *p) > > > + struct cgroup_taskset *tset) > > > { > > > + struct task_struct *p = cgroup_taskset_first(tset); > > > int ret = 0; > > > struct mem_cgroup *mem = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgroup); > > > > > > > Ah..hmm. I think this doesn't work as expected for memcg. > > Maybe code like this will be required. > > Hmmm... the above is basically identity transformation of the existing > code. If the above is broken, the current code is broken too. Is it? > Current code is not broken. mem_cgroup_can_attach(....., task) need to do real job only when task->mm->owner == task. In this modification, you pass a set of task at once. So, mem_cgroup_can_attach() need to check _all_ tasks in tset rather than a first task in tset. please scan and find mm->owner. Anyway, if you merge this onto mm-tree first, I think I can have time to write a fix up if complicated. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers