Hello, Glauber.

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:46:02PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

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