Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964800AbWHQR35 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:29:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965147AbWHQR35 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:29:57 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:42919 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964800AbWHQR34 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:29:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=XaUDx3GRQrr92AyKTThuevnGDZyQbh2jrZEU+mBucSoz2luGHBE6tvvdAV5gvtOQc qDDRDdlyVTh0Z/4/X50kw== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Rik van Riel Cc: Dave Hansen , Alan Cox , Andi Kleen , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <44E488EF.4090803@redhat.com> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C8A.6030705@sw.ru> <1155754029.9274.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155755729.22595.101.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155758369.9274.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155774274.15195.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155824788.9274.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44E488EF.4090803@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:28:20 -0700 Message-Id: <1155835700.14617.55.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1329 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 11:19 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Dave Hansen wrote: > > > 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. > > Every userspace or page cache page will be in an object > though. Could we do the pointer on a per object (mapping, > anon vma, ...) basis? > > Kernel pages are not using all of their struct page entries, > so we could overload a field. > Bingo. Even though it has the word "overload". > It all depends on how much we really care about not growing > struct page :) > Besides, if we have the container pointer based on address_space (for example) then it will also allow file based tracking... I think page based container pointer makes more sense when you have container as the central part of page lists (in place of nodes) deciding which list the free page is going to come from, and when freed which list it is going to go back to. -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/