Re: [RFC] Shared page accounting for memory cgroup

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:31:50 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/