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 84C976B020B for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o2U3F10D001098 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:15:01 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B8C45DE55 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:15:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C2145DE52 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:15:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF466E18009 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:15:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E76E18004 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:15:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:11:19 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH(v2) -mmotm 2/2] memcg move charge of shmem at task migration Message-Id: <20100330121119.fcc7d45b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100330114903.476af77e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20100329120243.af6bfeac.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100329120359.1c6a277d.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100329133645.e3bde19f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100330103301.b0d20f7e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100330112301.f5bb49d7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100330114903.476af77e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh List-ID: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:49:03 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:23:01 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > SHARED mapped file cache is not moved by patch [1/2] ??? > > It sounds strange. > > > hmm, I'm sorry I'm not so good at user applications, but is it usual to use > VM_SHARED file caches(!tmpfs) ? > And is it better for us to move them only when page_mapcount() == 1 ? > Considering shared library which has only one user, moving MAP_SHARED makes sense. Unfortunately, there are people who creates their own shared library just for their private dlopen() etc. (shared library for private use...) So, I think moving MAP_SHARED files makes sense. 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