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

From: Kirill Korotaev
Date: Fri Aug 18 2006 - 04:46:48 EST

Rohit Seth wrote:
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

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.
because introducing additonal lookups/hashes etc. is harder and
adds another source for possible mistakes.
we can always optimize it out if people insist.


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