Patrick.Le-Dot wrote:
>> ...
>> This would limit the numbers to groups to the word size on the machine.
>
> yes, this should be the bigger disadvantage of this implementation...
> But may be acceptable for a prototype, at least to explain the concept ?
>
I think we need to find a more efficient mechanism to track shared pages
>
>> It would be interesting if we can support shared pages without any
>> changes to struct page.
>
> I suppose that means you are on a system without kswapd...
>
> Is everybody OK with that ?
> This is a question for the linux-mm list...
>
No, I have kswapd, like I said earlier, I have a patch that uses rmap
information for detecting and accounting shared pages. I hope to
post a patch soon.
>
>> Any particular reason for not implementing migration in this patch.
>
> Nothing special, only incremental code, step by step.
> So first try to have a sane shared pages accounting...
Aah, ok
>
>> Do you have any test results with this patch? Showing the effect of
>> tracking shared pages
>
> Only the RSS counter after reboot (same hw/software config) :
>
> with your patch :
> # mount -t container none /dev/container
> # cat /dev/container/memctlr.stats
> RSS Pages 10571
>
> and with my shared pages accounting patch :
> # mount -t container none /dev/container
> # cat /dev/container/memctlr.stats
> RSS Pages 7329
>
>
Is there any way to print out the shared pages, I think it should
easy to track shared pages per container as an accountable parameter.
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
