Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) | From | Rohit Seth <> | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:38:00 -0700 |
| |
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/
| |