On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:52 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Rohit Seth wrote:

quoted

Right now the memory handler in this container subsystem is written in
such a way that when existing kernel reclaimer kicks in, it will first
operate on those (container with pages over the limit) pages first.  But
in general I like the notion of containerizing the whole reclaim code.

Which comes naturally with cpusets.

How are shared mappings dealt with, are pages charged to the set that
first faults them in?

For anonymous pages (simpler case), they get charged to the faulting
task's container.

For filesystem pages (could be shared across tasks running different
containers): Every time a new file mapping is created, it is bound to a
container of the process creating that mapping.  All subsequent pages
belonging to this mapping will belong to this container, irrespective of
different tasks running in different containers accessing these pages.
Currently, I've not implemented a mechanism to allow a file to be
specifically moved into or out of container. But when that gets
implemented then all pages belonging to a mapping will also move out of
container (or into a new container).

-rohit

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>