From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx202.postini.com [74.125.245.202]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4F006B009D for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so11833749pbb.14 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 07:59:30 +0900 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Message-ID: <20121003225930.GF19248@localhost> References: <20120927142822.GG3429@suse.de> <20120927144942.GB4251@mtj.dyndns.org> <50646977.40300@parallels.com> <20120927174605.GA2713@localhost> <50649EAD.2050306@parallels.com> <20120930075700.GE10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <20120930080249.GF10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <1348995388.2458.8.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20120930103732.GK10383@mtj.dyndns.org> <5069584A.8090809@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5069584A.8090809@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: James Bottomley , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner Hello, Glauber. On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:46:02PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Yeah, it will need some hooks. For dentry and inode, I think it would > > be pretty well isolated tho. Wasn't it? > > We would still need something for the stack. For open files, and for > everything that becomes a potential problem. We then end up with 35 > different knobs instead of one. One of the perceived advantages of this > approach, is that it condenses as much data as a single knob as > possible, reducing complexity and over flexibility. Oh, I didn't mean to use object-specific counting for all of them. Most resources don't have such common misaccounting problem. I mean, for stack, it doesn't exist by definition (other than cgroup migration). There's no reason to use anything other than first-use kmem based accounting for them. My point was that for particularly problematic ones like dentry/inode, it might be better to treat them differently. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org