Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memoryaccounting (core)

From: Rohit Seth
Date: Thu Aug 17 2006 - 13:27:29 EST

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 11:19 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > 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.
> Every userspace or page cache page will be in an object
> though. Could we do the pointer on a per object (mapping,
> anon vma, ...) basis?
> Kernel pages are not using all of their struct page entries,
> so we could overload a field.

Bingo. Even though it has the word "overload".

> It all depends on how much we really care about not growing
> struct page :)

Besides, if we have the container pointer based on address_space (for
example) then it will also allow file based tracking...

I think page based container pointer makes more sense when you have
container as the central part of page lists (in place of nodes) deciding
which list the free page is going to come from, and when freed which
list it is going to go back to.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at