[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5069584A.8090809@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:46:02 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
On 09/30/2012 02:37 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, James.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 09:56:28AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
>> The beancounter approach originally used by OpenVZ does exactly this.
>> There are two specific problems, though, firstly you can't count
>> references in generic code, so now you have to extend the cgroup
>> tentacles into every object, an invasiveness which people didn't really
>> like.
>
> Yeah, it will need some hooks. For dentry and inode, I think it would
> be pretty well isolated tho. Wasn't it?
>
We would still need something for the stack. For open files, and for
everything that becomes a potential problem. We then end up with 35
different knobs instead of one. One of the perceived advantages of this
approach, is that it condenses as much data as a single knob as
possible, reducing complexity and over flexibility.
--
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