From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993116AbXDSFhr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:37:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993117AbXDSFhr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:37:47 -0400 Received: from ausmtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.155]:64450 "EHLO ausmtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993116AbXDSFhq (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:37:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4627000A.1050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0530 From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Emelianov CC: Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Paul Menage , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Balbir Singh , devel@openvz.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Chandra Seetharaman , Cedric Le Goater , "Eric W. Biederman" , Rohit Seth , Linux Containers Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] RSS controller based on process containers (v2) References: <461A3010.90403@sw.ru> <1176134091.22676.96.camel@lappy> <461B4B3F.6090506@sw.ru> In-Reply-To: <461B4B3F.6090506@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> *ugh* /me no like. >> >> The basic premises seems to be that we can track page owners perfectly >> (although this patch set does not yet do so), through get/release > > It looks like you have examined the patches not very carefully > before concluding this. These patches DO track page owners. > > I know that a page may be shared among several containers and > thus have many owners so we should track all of them. This is > exactly what we decided not to do half-a-year ago. > > Page sharing accounting is performed in OpenVZ beancounters, and > this functionality will be pushed to mainline after this simple > container. > >> operations (on _mapcount). >> >> This is simply not true for unmapped pagecache pages. Those receive no >> 'release' event; (the usage by find_get_page() could be seen as 'get'). > > These patches concern the mapped pagecache only. Unmapped pagecache > control is out of the scope of it since we do not want one container > to track all the resources. Unmapped pagecache control and swapcache control is part of independent pagecache controller that is being developed. Initial version was posted at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/06/51 I plan to post a new version based on this patchset in a couple of days. --Vaidy >> Also, you don't seem to balance the active/inactive scanning on a per >> container basis. This skews the per container working set logic. > > This is not true. Balbir sent a patch to the first version of this > container that added active/inactive balancing to the container. > I have included this (a bit reworked) patch into this version and > pointed this fact in the zeroth letter. > [snip]