Hello, Michal. On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 01:11:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Widening the definition of a process sounds good. The memory control > > > group code would still need a way to forbid these in cgroup v1 mode, > > > when someone uses the task file. > > > > Yeap, you're right. We'll need memcg's can_attach rejecting for v1. > > Do we really need? I mean, do we know about any existing usecase that > would need this weird threading concept and depend on memory migration > which doesn't really work?
I thought the requirement is from the ->owner change so that the association doesn't become 1:N, right? Thanks. -- tejun
