From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m49DZ2qJ031743 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 19:05:02 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m49DYrVC938012 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 19:04:53 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m49DXW47024484 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 19:03:33 +0530 Message-ID: <48245308.9010401@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 19:05:04 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 3/4] Add rlimit controller accounting and control References: <20080503213726.3140.68845.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080503213814.3140.66080.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <6599ad830805062029m37b507dcue737e1affddeb120@mail.gmail.com> <48230FBB.20105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830805081445w5991b47cld2861aab26ac6323@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830805081445w5991b47cld2861aab26ac6323@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Menage Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: Paul Menage wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: >> I currently intend to use this controller for controlling memory related >> rlimits, like address space and mlock'ed memory. How about we use something like >> "memrlimit"? > > Sounds reasonable. > >> Good suggestion, but it will be hard if not impossible to account the data >> correctly as it changes, if we do the accounting/summation at bind time. We'll >> need a really big lock to do it, something I want to avoid. Did you have >> something else in mind? > > Yes, it'll be tricky but I think worthwhile. I believe it can be done > without the charge/uncharge code needing to take a global lock, except > for when we're actually binding/unbinding, with careful use of RCU. > [snip] This is an optimization that I am willing to consider later in the project. At first I want to focus on functionality. I would like to optimize once I know that the functionality has been well tested by a good base of users and make sure that the optimization is real. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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