Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751276AbWHRIw3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:52:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751290AbWHRIw2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:52:28 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:22873 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276AbWHRIw0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:52:26 -0400 Message-ID: <44E58059.6020605@sw.ru> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:54:49 +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 , Alan Cox , Rik van Riel , Andi Kleen , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Pavel Emelianov 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> <1155835401.9274.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155836198.14617.61.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <1155836198.14617.61.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: 991 Lines: 30 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/