Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:49:25 +0400 | | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) |
| |
Rohit Seth wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 17:35 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > >>>My preference would be to have container (I keep on saying container, >>>but resource beancounter) pointer embeded in task, mm(not sure), >>>address_space and anon_vma structures. This should allow us to track >>>user land pages optimally. But for tracking kernel usage on behalf of >>>user, we will have to use an additional field (unless we can re-use >>>mapping). Please correct me if I'm wrong, though all the kernel >>>resources will be allocated/freed in context of a user process. And at >>>that time we know if a allocation should succeed or not. So we may >>>actually not need to track kernel pages that closely. We are not going >>>to run reclaim on any of them anyways. >> >>objects are really allocated in process context >>(except for TCP/IP and other softirqs which are done in arbitrary >>process context!) > > > Can these pages be tagged using mapping field of the page struct. kernel pages can be taged with mapping field. User pages - not. So we introduce 2 pointers in the unoin: union { page_ub // for kernel pages page_pb // for user pages } > > >>And objects are not always freed in correct context (!). >> > > You mean beyond Networking and softirq. > > >>Note, page_ub is not for _user_ pages. user pages accounting will be added >>in next patch set. page_ub is added to track kernel allocations. >> > > > But will the page_ub be used for some purpose for user land pages? yes. see above.
Kirill
- 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/
|  |