Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:51:48 +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 07:26 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >>On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 01:24 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >> >>>Ar Mer, 2006-08-16 am 12:59 -0700, ysgrifennodd Dave Hansen: >>> >>>>relationship between processes and mm's. We could also potentially have >>>>two different threads of a process in two different accounting contexts. >>>>But, that might be as simple to fix as disallowing things that share mms >>>>from being in different accounting contexts, unless you unshare the mm. >>> >>>At the point I have twenty containers containing 20 copies of glibc to >>>meet your suggestion it would be *far* cheaper to put it in the page >>>struct. >> >>My main thought is that _everybody_ is going to have to live with the >>entry in the 'struct page'. Distros ship one kernel for everybody, and >>the cost will be paid by those not even using any kind of resource >>control or containers. >> >>That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it! > > > > hmm, not sure why it is simpler. because introducing additonal lookups/hashes etc. is harder and adds another source for possible mistakes. we can always optimize it out if people insist.
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/
| |