lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:06 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:


> ==
> if (scan_global_lru(sc)) {
> if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
> continue;
> note_zone_scanning_priority(zone, priority);
>
> if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone) &&
> priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
> continue; /* Let kswapd poll it */
> sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> } else {
> /*
> * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
> * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
> */
> sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(sc->mem_cgroup,
> priority);
> }
> ==
>
> First point is (maybe) my mistake. We have to add cpuset hardwall check to memcg
> part. (I will write a patch soon.)
>

I found my comment seems to say some correct thing..
==
/*
* Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
* # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
*/
==
When we handle memory shortage, we'll have to change this mind.
But I can think of another example easily...
==
MemcgA: limit=1G
CpusetX: mem=0
CpusetY: mem=1
taskP = MemcgA+CpusetX
taskQ = MemcgA+CpusetY
==
In this case, we just want to reduce the usage of memory....nonsense ?
Hmm..I should refresh my brain and revisit this later.
Any inputs are welcome.

Thanks,
-Kame






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-30 04:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans