lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:54 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
    > Rohit Seth wrote:
    > > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:23 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:16 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>>That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it!
    > >>>
    > >>>hmm, not sure why it is simpler.
    > >>
    > >>When you ask the question, "which container owns this page?", you don't
    > >>have to look far,
    > >
    > >
    > > as in page->mapping->container for user land?

    > in case of anon_vma, page->mapping can be the same
    > for 2 pages beloning to different containers.
    >

    In your experience, have you seen processes belonging to different
    containers sharing the same anon_vma? On a more general note, could you
    please point me to a place that has the list of requirements for which
    we are designing this solution.

    > >>nor is it ambiguous in any way. It is very strict,
    > >>and very straightforward.
    > >
    > > What additional ambiguity you have when inode or task structures have
    > > the required information.
    > inodes can belong to multiple containers and so do the pages.
    >

    I'm still thinking that inodes should belong to one container (or may be
    have it configurable based on some flag).

    -rohit

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-18 19:43    [W:4.663 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site