Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:26 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton OSDL <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: per-process shared information
Message-ID: <20041015211626.GQ5607@holomorphy.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410151207140.5682-100000@localhost.localdomain> <1097846353.2674.13298.camel@cube> <20041015162000.GB17849@dualathlon.random> <1097857912.2669.13548.camel@cube> <20041015171355.GD17849@dualathlon.random> <1097862714.2666.13650.camel@cube> <20041015181446.GF17849@dualathlon.random> <20041015183025.GN5607@holomorphy.com> <20041015184009.GG17849@dualathlon.random> <20041015184713.GO5607@holomorphy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041015184713.GO5607@holomorphy.com>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1426
Lines: 26

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:47:13AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Private should be "anonymous" as far as I can tell. What's actually
> going on is that they're trying to estimate per-process user memory
> footprints so that the amount of client load that should be distributed
> to a given box may be estimated from that. They at least used to
> believe (I've since debunked this) that 2.4.x reported this information.
> Their task (and hence our reporting) is not providing the complete
> information to determine per-process memory footprints for general
> workloads, rather it's known up-front that no fork()-based COW sharing
> is going on in Oracle's case, so in this case, "anonymous" very happily
> corresponds to "process-private". In fact, the /proc/ changes to report
> threads only under the directory hierarchy of some distinguished thread
> assists in this estimation effort.

Okay, I reached the very original source(s) of these requirements inside
Oracle, and they are more than satisfied with Hugh's patch, particularly
as I explained to them how it was actually more accurate than 2.4.x;
they're only waiting for ports to the vendor kernel(s) now.


-- wli
-
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/