Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> *ugh* /me no like. >> >> The basic premises seems to be that we can track page owners perfectly >> (although this patch set does not yet do so), through get/release > > It looks like you have examined the patches not very carefully > before concluding this. These patches DO track page owners. > > I know that a page may be shared among several containers and > thus have many owners so we should track all of them. This is > exactly what we decided not to do half-a-year ago. > > Page sharing accounting is performed in OpenVZ beancounters, and > this functionality will be pushed to mainline after this simple > container. > >> operations (on _mapcount). >> >> This is simply not true for unmapped pagecache pages. Those receive no >> 'release' event; (the usage by find_get_page() could be seen as 'get'). > > These patches concern the mapped pagecache only. Unmapped pagecache > control is out of the scope of it since we do not want one container > to track all the resources.
Unmapped pagecache control and swapcache control is part of independent pagecache controller that is being developed. Initial version was posted at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/06/51 I plan to post a new version based on this patchset in a couple of days. --Vaidy >> Also, you don't seem to balance the active/inactive scanning on a per >> container basis. This skews the per container working set logic. > > This is not true. Balbir sent a patch to the first version of this > container that added active/inactive balancing to the container. > I have included this (a bit reworked) patch into this version and > pointed this fact in the zeroth letter. > [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/