On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > IMO, ideally the charge of shared (both file and anon) pages should > be accounted for all cgroups to which the processes mapping the pages > belong to, where each charge is weighted by inverse number of mapcount. > I think accounting total number of mapcount with another counter does > not work, because the weight of charge depends on each page and the > total count of mapcount doesn't describe the proportion among cgroups. > But anyway, it adds more complexity and needs much work, so is not > a short term fix. That "ideal" complexity was considered before the current memcg approach went in. We elected to go with the less satisfying, but much simpler, single-owner approach, and it does seem to have paid off. I believe that even those who had successfully developed a more complex approach have since abandoned it for performance scalability reasons. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>