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

From: Rohit Seth
Date: Fri Aug 18 2006 - 13:36:54 EST

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:54 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Rohit Seth wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:23 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:16 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> >>
> >>>>That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it!
> >>>
> >>>hmm, not sure why it is simpler.
> >>
> >>When you ask the question, "which container owns this page?", you don't
> >>have to look far,
> >
> >
> > as in page->mapping->container for user land?

> in case of anon_vma, page->mapping can be the same
> for 2 pages beloning to different containers.

In your experience, have you seen processes belonging to different
containers sharing the same anon_vma? On a more general note, could you
please point me to a place that has the list of requirements for which
we are designing this solution.

> >>nor is it ambiguous in any way. It is very strict,
> >>and very straightforward.
> >
> > What additional ambiguity you have when inode or task structures have
> > the required information.
> inodes can belong to multiple containers and so do the pages.

I'm still thinking that inodes should belong to one container (or may be
have it configurable based on some flag).


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