On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:39 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Anyway I don't think I have much to say other than: this is almost
> exactly as I had imagined the memory resource tracking should look
> like. Just a small number of hooks and a very simple set of rules for
> tracking allocations. Also, the possibility to track kernel
> allocations as a whole rather than at individual callsites (which
> shouldn't be too difficult to implement).
>
I've started looking in that direction. First shot could just be
tracking kernel memory consumption w/o worrying about whether it is slab
or PT etc. Hopefully next patchset will have that support integrated.
> If anything I would perhaps even argue for further cutting down the
> number of hooks and add them back as they prove to be needed.
>
I think the current set of changes (and tracking of different
components) is necessary for memory handler to do the right thing. Plus
it is possible that user land management tools can also make use of this
information.
> I'm not sure about containers & workload management people, but from
> a core mm/ perspective I see no reason why this couldn't get in,
> given review and testing. Great!
>
That is great to know. Thanks. Hopefully it is getting enough coverage
to get there.
-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]
