[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1203061722040.1431@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:29:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix mapcount check in move charge code for
anonymous page
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>
> IMO, ideally the charge of shared (both file and anon) pages should
> be accounted for all cgroups to which the processes mapping the pages
> belong to, where each charge is weighted by inverse number of mapcount.
> I think accounting total number of mapcount with another counter does
> not work, because the weight of charge depends on each page and the
> total count of mapcount doesn't describe the proportion among cgroups.
> But anyway, it adds more complexity and needs much work, so is not
> a short term fix.
That "ideal" complexity was considered before the current memcg approach
went in. We elected to go with the less satisfying, but much simpler,
single-owner approach, and it does seem to have paid off. I believe
that even those who had successfully developed a more complex approach
have since abandoned it for performance scalability reasons.
Hugh
--
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