Re: per-process shared information

William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-14T22:25:57Z

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:49:28PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Sounds horrid to me! I'm not inclined to volunteer for that: plus this
> is very much Bill's territory, though he might be glad to surrender it!
> But how about the patch below? Really a mixture of four patches...
> One, support anon_rss as a subset of rss, "shared" being (rss - anon_rss).
> Yes, that's a slight change in meaning of "shared" from in 2.4, but easy
> to support and I think very reasonable. On the one hand, yes, of course
> we know an anon page may actually be shared between several mms of the
> fork group, whereas it won't be counted in "shared" with this patch. But
> the old definition of "shared" was considerably more stupid, wasn't it?
> for example, a private page in pte and swap cache got counted as shared.

This is all very reasonable.

-- wli