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

Rohit Seth
2006-08-18T17:39:32Z

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).

-rohit