Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:54:49 +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 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.
>>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.
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/
| |