Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755277AbYCQB4U (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:56:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751594AbYCQB4M (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:56:12 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:14401 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751325AbYCQB4L (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:56:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=Kp4jVGpAINO6mDRy2rozi5lyaQH1/r4p770AZZh1N0dYezzu2p4uvOnQd1vSnUBjn ac76p2vXw0rBNaIBoET6w== Message-ID: <6599ad830803161855y1ceb8aa8t2f486434b521bd81@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:55:59 +0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, "Hugh Dickins" , "Sudhir Kumar" , "YAMAMOTO Takashi" , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, "David Rientjes" , "Pavel Emelianov" , "Andrew Morton" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" In-Reply-To: <47DDCE5E.9020104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080316172942.8812.56051.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <6599ad830803161626q1fcf261bta52933bb5e7a6bdd@mail.gmail.com> <47DDCE5E.9020104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1088 Lines: 23 On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > I am yet to measure the performance overhead of the accounting checks. I'll try > and get started on that today. I did not consider making it a separate system, > because I suspect that anybody wanting memory control would also want address > space control (for the advantages listed in the documentation). I'm a counter-example to your suspicion :-) Trying to control virtual address space is a complete nightmare in the presence of anything that uses large sparsely-populated mappings (mmaps of large files, or large sparse heaps such as the JVM uses.) If we want to control the effect of swapping, the right way to do it is to control disk I/O, and ensure that the swapping is accounted to that. Or simply just not give apps much swap space. Paul -- 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/