[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121003225930.GF19248@localhost>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 07:59:30 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
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
Hello, Glauber.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:46:02PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > 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.
Oh, I didn't mean to use object-specific counting for all of them.
Most resources don't have such common misaccounting problem. I mean,
for stack, it doesn't exist by definition (other than cgroup
migration). There's no reason to use anything other than first-use
kmem based accounting for them. My point was that for particularly
problematic ones like dentry/inode, it might be better to treat them
differently.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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