On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST) Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated dynamically, > - Sometimes quite a large amount of memory get marked dirty. > In this case it requires more kernel memory than that of the > current implementation. > - The operation is expansive due to memory allocations and exclusive > controls by such as spinlocks. > > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated by delayed allocation, > - It makes the operation complicated and expensive, because > sometimes a bio has to be created in the context of other > processes, such as aio and swap-out operation. > > I'd prefer a simple and lightweight implementation. bio-cgroup only > needs 4bytes unlike memory controller. The reason why bio-cgroup chose > this approach is to minimize the overhead. > My point is, plz do your best to reduce memory usage here. You increase size of page_cgroup just because you cannot increase size of struct page. It's not be sane reason to increase size of this object. It's a cheat in my point of view. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
