Re: per-process shared information

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:47:13AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Private should be "anonymous" as far as I can tell. What's actually
> going on is that they're trying to estimate per-process user memory
> footprints so that the amount of client load that should be distributed
> to a given box may be estimated from that. They at least used to
> believe (I've since debunked this) that 2.4.x reported this information.
> Their task (and hence our reporting) is not providing the complete
> information to determine per-process memory footprints for general
> workloads, rather it's known up-front that no fork()-based COW sharing
> is going on in Oracle's case, so in this case, "anonymous" very happily
> corresponds to "process-private". In fact, the /proc/ changes to report
> threads only under the directory hierarchy of some distinguished thread
> assists in this estimation effort.

Okay, I reached the very original source(s) of these requirements inside
Oracle, and they are more than satisfied with Hugh's patch, particularly
as I explained to them how it was actually more accurate than 2.4.x;
they're only waiting for ports to the vendor kernel(s) now.


-- wli
-
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/