Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755337Ab0AFHP0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:15:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752997Ab0AFHPZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:15:25 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:56028 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753324Ab0AFHPY (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:15:24 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:12:11 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" Subject: Re: [RFC] Shared page accounting for memory cgroup Message-Id: <20100106161211.5a7b600f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100106070150.GL3059@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20091229182743.GB12533@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100104085108.eaa9c867.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100104000752.GC16187@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100104093528.04846521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100104005030.GG16187@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100106130258.a918e047.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100106070150.GL3059@balbir.in.ibm.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (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: 1281 Lines: 34 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:31:50 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > No. If it takes long time, locking fork()/exit() for such long time is the bigger > > issue. > > I recommend you to add memacct subsystem to sum up RSS of all processes's RSS counting > > under a cgroup. Althoght it may add huge costs in page fault path but implementation > > will be very simple and will not hurt realtime ops. > > There will be no terrible race, I guess. > > > > But others hold that lock as well, simple thing like listing tasks and > moving tasks, etc. I expect the usage of shared to be in the same > range. > And piles up costs ? I think cgroup guys should pay attention to fork/exit costs more. Now, it gets slower and slower. In that point, I never like migrate-at-task-move work in cpuset and memcg. My 1st objection to this patch is this "shared" doesn't mean "shared between cgroup" but means "shared between processes". I think it's of no use and no help to users. And implementation is 2nd thing. 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/