Messages in this thread | | | From | kamezawa.hiroyu@jp ... | Date | Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:02:47 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy |
| |
----- Original Message ----- way, breaks limit semantics. >>> >> Not easy to use in my point of view. Can we use 'share' in proper way >> on no-swap machine ? >> > >Not sure I understand your question. Share represents the share of available >resources. >
If no swap, you cannot reclaim anonymous pages and shared memory. Then, the kernel has to abandon any kinds of auto-balancing somewhere. (just an example. Things will be more complicated when we consinder mlocked pages and swap-resource-controller.)
>> yield() after callback() means that res_counter's state will be >> far different from the state after callback. >> So, we have to yield before call back and check res_coutner sooner. >> > >But does yield() get us any guarantees of seeing the state change? > Hmm, myabe my explanation is bad.
in following sequence 1.callback() 2.yield() 3.check usage again Elapsed time between 1->3 is big.
in following 1.yield() 2.callback() 3.check usage again Elapsed time between 2->3 is small.
There is an option to implement "changing limit grarually"
Thanks, -Kame
| |