[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156521434.3007.251.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:57:14 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)
Ar Sad, 2006-08-26 am 01:14 +1000, ysgrifennodd Nick Piggin:
> I still think doing simple accounting per-page would be a better way to
> go than trying to pin down all "user allocatable" kernel allocations.
> And would require all of about 2 hooks in the page allocator. And would
> track *actual* RAM allocated by that container.
You have a variety of kernel objects you want to worry about and they
have very differing properties.
Some are basically shared resources - page cache, dentries, inodes, etc
and can be balanced pretty well by the kernel (ok the dentries are a bit
of a problem right now). Others are very specific "owned" resources -
like file handles, sockets and vmas.
Tracking actual RAM use by container/user/.. isn't actually that
interesting. It's also inconveniently sub page granularity.
Its a whole seperate question whether you want a separate bean counter
limit for sockets, file handles, vmas etc.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists