Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751752AbWITQ2B (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:28:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751757AbWITQ2B (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:28:01 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:36002 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751752AbWITQ2A (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:28:00 -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=fbELe13BNi6gF9rHLwQWFWiJD1hsZy8gKVj/qUCWSOPihVxs5nuNgZ04HHHx9fca3 Ldr4L8Q/EgfP8tglF0OoA== Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Nick Piggin Cc: CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management In-Reply-To: <4510D3F4.1040009@yahoo.com.au> References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4510D3F4.1040009@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:27:46 -0700 Message-Id: <1158769666.8574.10.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: 1532 Lines: 40 On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:39 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Anyway I don't think I have much to say other than: this is almost > exactly as I had imagined the memory resource tracking should look > like. Just a small number of hooks and a very simple set of rules for > tracking allocations. Also, the possibility to track kernel > allocations as a whole rather than at individual callsites (which > shouldn't be too difficult to implement). > I've started looking in that direction. First shot could just be tracking kernel memory consumption w/o worrying about whether it is slab or PT etc. Hopefully next patchset will have that support integrated. > If anything I would perhaps even argue for further cutting down the > number of hooks and add them back as they prove to be needed. > I think the current set of changes (and tracking of different components) is necessary for memory handler to do the right thing. Plus it is possible that user land management tools can also make use of this information. > I'm not sure about containers & workload management people, but from > a core mm/ perspective I see no reason why this couldn't get in, > given review and testing. Great! > That is great to know. Thanks. Hopefully it is getting enough coverage to get there. -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/