From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756939AbYEINfW (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 09:35:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751079AbYEINfI (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 09:35:08 -0400 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:41430 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949AbYEINfG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 09:35:06 -0400 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 Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) MIME-Version: 1.0 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 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: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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