Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting(core)
From: Rohit Seth
Date: Thu Aug 17 2006 - 13:16:54 EST
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 07:26 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 01:24 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Ar Mer, 2006-08-16 am 12:59 -0700, ysgrifennodd Dave Hansen:
> > > relationship between processes and mm's. We could also potentially have
> > > two different threads of a process in two different accounting contexts.
> > > But, that might be as simple to fix as disallowing things that share mms
> > > from being in different accounting contexts, unless you unshare the mm.
> > At the point I have twenty containers containing 20 copies of glibc to
> > meet your suggestion it would be *far* cheaper to put it in the page
> > struct.
> My main thought is that _everybody_ is going to have to live with the
> entry in the 'struct page'. Distros ship one kernel for everybody, and
> the cost will be paid by those not even using any kind of resource
> control or containers.
> That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it!
hmm, not sure why it is simpler.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/