Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:19:16 +0300 | From | Pavel Emelianov <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller |
| |
[snip]
> A quick code review showed that most of the accounting is the > same. > > I see that most of the mmap accounting code, it seems to do > the equivalent of security_vm_enough_memory() when VM_ACCOUNT > is set. May be we could merge the accounting code to handle > even containers. > > I looked at > > do_mmap_pgoff > acct_stack_growth > __do_brk ( > do_mremap
I'm sure this is possible. I'll take this into account in the next patch series. Thank you.
>> [snip] >> >>> Please see the patching of Rohit's memory controller for user >>> level patching. It seems much simpler. >> Could you send me an URL where to get the patch from, please. >> Or the patch itself directly to me. Thank you. > > Please see http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/19/283
Thanks. I'll review it in a couple of days and comment.
[snip]
> I think the interface should depend on the controllers and not > the other way around. I fear that the infrastructure discussion might > hold us back and no fruitful work will happen on the controllers. > Once we add and agree on the controller, we can then look at the > interface requirements (like persistence if kernel memory is being > tracked, etc). What do you think?
I do agree with you. But we have to make an agreement with Paul in this also... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |