From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756093AbbE2NLK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 May 2015 09:11:10 -0400
Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41]:36167 "EHLO
	mail-qg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755489AbbE2NK7 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 May 2015 09:10:59 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:10:55 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] memcg: get rid of mm_struct::owner
Message-ID: <20150529131055.GH27479@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1432641006-8025-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
 <1432641006-8025-4-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
 <20150526141011.GA11065@cmpxchg.org>
 <20150528210742.GF27479@htj.duckdns.org>
 <20150529120838.GC22728@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150529120838.GC22728@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 02:08:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I suppose that making mm always follow the threadgroup leader should
> > be fine, right? 
> 
> That is the plan.

Cool.

> > While this wouldn't make any difference in the unified hierarchy,
> 
> Just to make sure I understand. "wouldn't make any difference" because
> the API is not backward compatible right?

Hmm... because it's always per-process.  If any thread is going, the
whole process is going together.

> > I think this would make more sense for traditional hierarchies.
> 
> Yes I believe so.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun