From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760684AbYDCELG (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:11:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751077AbYDCEKx (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:10:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:27470 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949AbYDCEKx (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:10:53 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=X9kxULDAW8d0DIBvaTkpJnw5vBfoRDuot04bFUrP+2GQo+7oT5RM0A2JxcpzTDLkh wYTXU0YjBOXcBGnVyj1Nw== Message-ID: <6599ad830804022110h2090f3efg7c6173df8185679e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:10:36 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v4) Cc: "Pavel Emelianov" , "Hugh Dickins" , "Sudhir Kumar" , "YAMAMOTO Takashi" , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, linux-mm@kvack.org, "David Rientjes" , "Andrew Morton" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" In-Reply-To: <47F4577E.5060905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080401124312.23664.64616.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <47F3D62E.4070808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830804021253y6bf3b37y9bf1167b63c32e70@mail.gmail.com> <47F4577E.5060905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > I checked to see that cgroup_exit is called after mm_update_new_owner(). We call > mm_update_new_owner() from exit_mm(). I did not check for current->cgroups != > new_owner->cgroups, since I did not want to limit the callbacks. No cgroup subsystem should be concerned about mm ownership changes between tasks in the same cgroup. So I think that's a valid and useful optimization. Paul