From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BF5C6B0047 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o067FMJR021826 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:15:22 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302EA45DE51 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:15:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA6D45DE4F for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:15:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15901DB8040 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:15:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FBA1DB8037 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:15:21 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:12:11 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC] Shared page accounting for memory cgroup Message-Id: <20100106161211.5a7b600f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100106070150.GL3059@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20091229182743.GB12533@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100104085108.eaa9c867.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100104000752.GC16187@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100104093528.04846521.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100104005030.GG16187@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100106130258.a918e047.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100106070150.GL3059@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:31:50 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > No. If it takes long time, locking fork()/exit() for such long time is the bigger > > issue. > > I recommend you to add memacct subsystem to sum up RSS of all processes's RSS counting > > under a cgroup. Althoght it may add huge costs in page fault path but implementation > > will be very simple and will not hurt realtime ops. > > There will be no terrible race, I guess. > > > > But others hold that lock as well, simple thing like listing tasks and > moving tasks, etc. I expect the usage of shared to be in the same > range. > And piles up costs ? I think cgroup guys should pay attention to fork/exit costs more. Now, it gets slower and slower. In that point, I never like migrate-at-task-move work in cpuset and memcg. My 1st objection to this patch is this "shared" doesn't mean "shared between cgroup" but means "shared between processes". I think it's of no use and no help to users. And implementation is 2nd thing. Thanks, -Kame -- 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