From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751433AbWHRRjc@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751433AbWHRRjc (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:39:32 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751434AbWHRRjc
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:39:32 -0400
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:47340 "EHLO
	smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751433AbWHRRjb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:39:31 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;
	h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:
	content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=MXnSibIyPxbpvBOM2ozr1AypjEUlZ2F/m5AsG9xQo9176Rw6RabhSPGPNYtY6DAW6
	eDThq0XbEbOZQvF8ojWrQ==
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory
	accounting	(core)
From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@google.com>
Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>
Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andrey Savochkin <saw@sw.ru>,
       devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
In-Reply-To: <44E58059.6020605@sw.ru>
References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru>  <44E33C8A.6030705@sw.ru>
	 <1155754029.9274.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1155755729.22595.101.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
	 <1155758369.9274.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1155774274.15195.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1155824788.9274.32.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1155835003.14617.45.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
	 <1155835401.9274.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1155836198.14617.61.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E58059.6020605@sw.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Google Inc
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:38:00 -0700
Message-Id: <1155922680.23242.7.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:54 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Rohit Seth wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:23 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > 
> >>On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:16 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> >>
> >>>>That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it!
> >>>
> >>>hmm, not sure why it is simpler.
> >>
> >>When you ask the question, "which container owns this page?", you don't
> >>have to look far, 
> > 
> > 
> > as in page->mapping->container for user land?

> in case of anon_vma, page->mapping can be the same
> for 2 pages beloning to different containers.
> 

In your experience, have you seen processes belonging to different
containers sharing the same anon_vma?  On a more general note, could you
please point me to a place that has the list of requirements for which
we are designing this solution.

> >>nor is it ambiguous in any way.  It is very strict,
> >>and very straightforward.
> > 
> > What additional ambiguity you have when inode or task structures have
> > the required information.
> inodes can belong to multiple containers and so do the pages.
> 

I'm still thinking that inodes should belong to one container (or may be
have it configurable based on some flag).

-rohit