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
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
