Re: [PATCH][mmotm]memcg: handle null dereference of mm->owner

[Paul Menage]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:40 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> BTW, I have a question to Balbir and Paul. (I'm sorry I missed the discussion.)
> Recently I wonder why we need MM_OWNER.
>
> - What's bad with thread's cgroup ?

Because lots of mm operations take place in a context where we don't
have a thread pointer, and hence no cgroup.

> - Why we can't disallow per-thread cgroup under memcg ?)

We can, but that's orthogonal - we still need to be able to get to
some thread (or a pointer directly in the mm to the cgroup, but with
multiple cgroup subsystems popping up that needed such a pointer, it
seems cleaner to have the owner pointer rather than adding multiple
separate cgroup subsystem pointers to mm.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/