Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751277AbWHRItl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:49:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751281AbWHRItl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:49:41 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:13857 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbWHRItk (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:49:40 -0400 Message-ID: <44E57FB4.8090905@sw.ru> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:52:04 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rohitseth@google.com CC: Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Pavel Emelianov , Alan Cox , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) 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> In-Reply-To: <1155835003.14617.45.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1463 Lines: 37 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 (by cost of slower accounting). 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/