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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
