From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: 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> <1158774657.8574.65.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:06:26 +0200 Message-Id: <1158775586.28174.27.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Rohit Seth , Nick Piggin , CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:52 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > Right now the memory handler in this container subsystem is written in > > such a way that when existing kernel reclaimer kicks in, it will first > > operate on those (container with pages over the limit) pages first. But > > in general I like the notion of containerizing the whole reclaim code. > > Which comes naturally with cpusets. How are shared mappings dealt with, are pages charged to the set that first faults them in? -- 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