Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>+struct rss_container {
>>+ struct res_counter res;
>>+ struct list_head page_list;
>>+ struct container_subsys_state css;
>>+};
>>+
>>+struct page_container {
>>+ struct page *page;
>>+ struct rss_container *cnt;
>>+ struct list_head list;
>>+};
>
>
> ah. This looks good. I'll find a hunk of time to go through this work
> and through Paul's patches. It'd be good to get both patchsets lined
> up in -mm within a couple of weeks. But..
>
> We need to decide whether we want to do per-container memory limitation via
> these data structures, or whether we do it via a physical scan of some
> software zone, possibly based on Mel's patches.
i.e. a separate memzone for each container?
imho memzone approach is inconvinient for pages sharing and shares accounting.
it also makes memory management more strict, forbids overcommiting
per-container etc.
Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this?
Thanks,
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
