[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux-VServer example results for sharing vs. separate mappings ...
    On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:20:35 +0530 Balbir Singh <> wrote:

    > Andrew Morton wrote:
    > <snip>
    > > The problem is memory reclaim. A number of schemes which have been
    > > proposed require a per-container page reclaim mechanism - basically a
    > > separate scanner.
    > >
    > > This is a huge, huge, huge problem. The present scanner has been under
    > > development for over a decade and has had tremendous amounts of work and
    > > testing put into it. And it still has problems. But those problems will
    > > be gradually addressed.
    > >
    > > A per-container recaim scheme really really really wants to reuse all that
    > > stuff rather than creating a separate, parallel, new scanner which has the
    > > same robustness requirements, only has a decade less test and development
    > > done on it. And which permanently doubles our maintenance costs.
    > >
    > The current per-container reclaim scheme does reuse a lot of code. As far
    > as code maintenance is concerned, I think it should be easy to merge
    > some of the common functionality by abstracting them out as different
    > functions. The container smartness comes in only in the
    > container_isolate_pages(). This is an easy to understand function.

    err, I think I'd forgotten about container_isolate_pages(). Yes, that
    addresses my main concern.

    > > So how do we reuse our existing scanner? With physical containers. One
    > > can envisage several schemes:
    > >
    > > a) slice the machine into 128 fake NUMA nodes, use each node as the
    > > basic block of memory allocation, manage the binding between these
    > > memory hunks and process groups with cpusets.
    > >
    > > This is what google are testing, and it works.
    > Don't we break the global LRU with this scheme?

    Sure, but that's deliberate!

    (And we don't have a global LRU - the LRUs are per-zone).

    > >
    > > b) Create a new memory abstraction, call it the "software zone", which
    > > is mostly decoupled from the present "hardware zones". Most of the MM
    > > is reworked to use "software zones". The "software zones" are
    > > runtime-resizeable, and obtain their pages via some means from the
    > > hardware zones. A container uses a software zone.
    > >
    > I think the problem would be figuring out where to allocate memory from?
    > What happens if a software zone spans across many hardware zones?

    Yes, that would be the tricky part. But we generally don't care what
    physical zone user pages come from, apart from NUMA optimisation.

    > The reclaim mechanism proposed *does not impact the non-container users*.

    Yup. Let's keep plugging away with Pavel's approach, see where it gets us.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-25 21:03    [W:0.027 / U:5.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site