Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753042AbZDGI0J (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:26:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751946AbZDGIZx (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:25:53 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:51450 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750920AbZDGIZw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:25:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:24:19 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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: <20090407172419.a5f318b9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090407080355.GS7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090407063722.GQ7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090407160014.8c545c3c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090407071825.GR7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090407163331.8e577170.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090407080355.GS7082@balbir.in.ibm.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2421 Lines: 73 On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:33:55 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-04-07 16:33:31]: > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:48:25 +0530 > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > * 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 > > > > > Hmm, is it good information ? > > > > Such kind of information can be calucated by > > == > > rss = 0; > > for_each_process_under_cgroup() { > > mm = tsk->mm > > rss += mm->anon_rss; > > } > > some_of_all_rss = rss; > > > > shared_ratio = mem_cgrou->rss *100 / some_of_all_rss. > > == > > if 100%, all anon memory are not shared. > > > > Why only anon? no serious intention. Just because you wrote "expect the user to account all cached pages as shared" ;) > This seems like a good idea, except when we have a page > charged to a cgroup and the task that charged it has migrated, in that > case sum_of_all_rss will be 0. > Yes. But we don't move pages at task-move under expectation that moved process will call fork() soon. "task move" has its own problem, so ignoring it for now is a choice. That kind of troubls can be treated when we fixes "task move". (or fix "task move" first.) Thanks, -Kame -- 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/