Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932412AbWHQRkm (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:40:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932474AbWHQRkm (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:40:42 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:45485 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932412AbWHQRkl (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:40:41 -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=CoCPS5KD0qV1CucIOhwNvtWS2Vvufzrps1eYrnZl0xxjcMW4V3kz/vYoaGe+rzqqQ lwbBlBt9lulYzXslIoxnA== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Dave Hansen Cc: Alan Cox , Rik van Riel , 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: <1155835401.9274.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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> <1155835003.14617.45.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155835401.9274.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:36:38 -0700 Message-Id: <1155836198.14617.61.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: 799 Lines: 25 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? > 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. -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/