On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:54 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Rohit Seth wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:23 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 10:16 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> >>
> >>>>That said, it sure is simpler to implement, so I'm all for it!
> >>>
> >>>hmm, not sure why it is simpler.
> >>
> >>When you ask the question, "which container owns this page?", you don't
> >>have to look far,
> >
> >
> > as in page->mapping->container for user land?
> in case of anon_vma, page->mapping can be the same
> for 2 pages beloning to different containers.
>
In your experience, have you seen processes belonging to different
containers sharing the same anon_vma? On a more general note, could you
please point me to a place that has the list of requirements for which
we are designing this solution.
> >>nor is it ambiguous in any way. It is very strict,
> >>and very straightforward.
> >
> > What additional ambiguity you have when inode or task structures have
> > the required information.
> inodes can belong to multiple containers and so do the pages.
>
I'm still thinking that inodes should belong to one container (or may be
have it configurable based on some flag).
-rohit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
