Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Glauber.

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:46:02PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Yeah, it will need some hooks.  For dentry and inode, I think it would
> > be pretty well isolated tho.  Wasn't it?
> 
> We would still need something for the stack. For open files, and for
> everything that becomes a potential problem. We then end up with 35
> different knobs instead of one. One of the perceived advantages of this
> approach, is that it condenses as much data as a single knob as
> possible, reducing complexity and over flexibility.

Oh, I didn't mean to use object-specific counting for all of them.
Most resources don't have such common misaccounting problem.  I mean,
for stack, it doesn't exist by definition (other than cgroup
migration).  There's no reason to use anything other than first-use
kmem based accounting for them.  My point was that for particularly
problematic ones like dentry/inode, it might be better to treat them
differently.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/