From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965454AbXCLJzM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:55:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965437AbXCLJzM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:55:12 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:17951 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965454AbXCLJzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:55:10 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=oMwNySQogWYAmJ9JvUtcDypoYWg6shUzmmF0owZs4UcyouDiyTp220NVHh+wfNbqaX8e57dEwsWsLM9oe+584qqzL2m1qL/avmmbJ+5prvYRgvf+27jj/kpw6PAV7REG+ZN3EW8Yt+WPMYHV5P10WrI9HbJvFalo2xBKHllKyxc= Message-ID: <661de9470703120255k4c4c1d0fy97a2b7a033c7b5b1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:25:07 +0530 From: "Balbir Singh" Reply-To: balbir@in.ibm.com To: "Andrew Morton" , "Pavel Emelianov" , Kirill@smtp.osdl.org, Linux@smtp.osdl.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, "Paul Menage" , List Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core In-Reply-To: <20070309164855.GB3647@MAIL.13thfloor.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <45ED7DEC.7010403@sw.ru> <45ED80E1.7030406@sw.ru> <20070306140036.4e85bd2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070309164855.GB3647@MAIL.13thfloor.at> X-Google-Sender-Auth: cab770e236139369 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > doesn't look so good for me, mainly becaus of the > additional per page data and per page processing > > on 4GB memory, with 100 guests, 50% shared for each > guest, this basically means ~1mio pages, 500k shared > and 1500k x sizeof(page_container) entries, which > roughly boils down to ~25MB of wasted memory ... > > increase the amount of shared pages and it starts > getting worse, but maybe I'm missing something here > > > We need to decide whether we want to do per-container memory > > limitation via these data structures, or whether we do it via a > > physical scan of some software zone, possibly based on Mel's patches. > > why not do simple page accounting (as done currently > in Linux) and use that for the limits, without > keeping the reference from container to page? > > best, > Herbert > Herbert, You lost me in the cc list and I almost missed this part of the thread. Could you please not modify the "cc" list. Thanks, Balbir