Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758548AbZDGHTU (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:19:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751720AbZDGHTH (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:19:07 -0400 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:48735 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752431AbZDGHTG (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:19:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:48:25 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , Rik van Riel , Bharata B Rao , Dhaval Giani , KOSAKI Motohiro , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFI] Shared accounting for memory resource controller Message-ID: <20090407071825.GR7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090407063722.GQ7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090407160014.8c545c3c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090407160014.8c545c3c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2759 Lines: 87 * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-04-07 16:00:14]: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:07:22 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > Hi, All, > > > > This is a request for input for the design of shared page accounting for > > the memory resource controller, here is what I have so far > > > > In my first impression, I think simple counting is impossible. > IOW, "usage count" and "shared or not" is very different problem. > > Assume a page and its page_cgroup. > > Case 1) > 1. a page is mapped by process-X under group-A > 2. its mapped by process-Y in group-B (now, shared and charged under group-A) > 3. move process-X to group-B > 4. now the page is not shared. > By shared I don't mean only between cgroups, it could be a page shared in the same cgroup > Case 2) > swap is an object which can be shared. > Good point, I expect the user to account all cached pages as shared - no? > Case 3) > 1. a page known as "A" is mapped by process-X under group-A. > 2. its mapped by process-Y under group-B(now, shared and charged under group-A) > 3. Do copy-on-write by process-X. > Now, "A" is mapped only by B but accoutned under group-A. > This case is ignored intentionally, now. Yes, that is the original design > Do you want to call try_charge() both against group-A and group-B > under process-X's page fault ? > No we don't, but copy-on-write is caught at page_rmap_dup() - no? > There will be many many corner case. > > > > Motivation for shared page accounting > > ------------------------------------- > > 1. Memory cgroup administrators will benefit from the knowledge of how > > much of the data is shared, it helps size the groups correctly. > > 2. We currently report only the pages brought in by the cgroup, knowledge > > of shared data will give a complete picture of the actual usage. > > > > Motivation sounds good. But counting this in generic rmap will have tons of > troubles and slow-down. > > I bet we should prepare a file as > /proc//cgroup_maps > > And show RSS/RSS-owned-by-us per process. Maybe this feature will be able to be > implemented in 3 days. Yes, we can probably do that, but if we have too many processes in one cgroup, we'll need to walk across all of them in user space. One other alternative I did not mention is to walk the LRU like we walk page tables and look at page_mapcount of every page, but that will be very slow. > > Thanks, > -Kame > > -- Balbir -- 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/