From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <451173B5.1000805@yahoo.com.au> References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4510D3F4.1040009@yahoo.com.au> <1158751720.8970.67.camel@twins> <4511626B.9000106@yahoo.com.au> <1158767787.3278.103.camel@taijtu> <451173B5.1000805@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:36:40 +0100 Message-Id: <1158773800.7705.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Peter Zijlstra , rohitseth@google.com, CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management , Christoph Lameter List-ID: Ar Iau, 2006-09-21 am 03:00 +1000, ysgrifennodd Nick Piggin: > > I've been thinking a bit on that problem, and it would be possible to > > share all address_space pages equally between attached containers, this > > would lose some accuracy, since one container could read 10% of the file > > and another 90%, but I don't think that is a common scenario. > > > Yeah, I'm not sure about that. I don't think really complex schemes > are needed... but again I might need more knowledge of their workloads > and problems. Any scenario which permits "cheating" will be a scenario that happens because people will try and cheat. Alan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org