Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

[Alan Cox]

Ar Sad, 2006-08-26 am 01:14 +1000, ysgrifennodd Nick Piggin:
> I still think doing simple accounting per-page would be a better way to
> go than trying to pin down all "user allocatable" kernel allocations.
> And would require all of about 2 hooks in the page allocator. And would
> track *actual* RAM allocated by that container.

You have a variety of kernel objects you want to worry about and they
have very differing properties.

Some are basically shared resources - page cache, dentries, inodes, etc
and can be balanced pretty well by the kernel (ok the dentries are a bit
of a problem right now). Others are very specific "owned" resources -
like file handles, sockets and vmas.

Tracking actual RAM use by container/user/.. isn't actually that
interesting. It's also inconveniently sub page granularity.

Its a whole seperate question whether you want a separate bean counter
limit for sockets, file handles, vmas etc.

Alan

-
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/