![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Kirill Korotaev wrote: >> On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> Alas, I fear this might have quite bad worst-case behaviour. One small >>> container which is under constant memory pressure will churn the >>> system-wide LRUs like mad, and will consume rather a lot of system time. >>> So it's a point at which container A can deleteriously affect things which >>> are running in other containers, which is exactly what we're supposed to >>> not do. >> >> I think it's OK for a container to consume lots of system time during >> reclaim, as long as we can account that time to the container involved >> (i.e. if it's done during direct reclaim rather than by something like >> kswapd). > hmm, is it ok to scan 100Gb of RAM for 10MB RAM container? > in UBC patch set we used page beancounters to track containter pages. > This allows to make efficient scan contoler and reclamation. > > Thanks, > Kirill Hi, Kirill, Yes, that's a problem, but I think it's a problem that can be solved in steps. First step, add reclaim. Second step, optimize reclaim. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-02-19 11:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||