Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:53:23 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3) |
| |
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:56:42 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-05 18:04:10]: > > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530 > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > I wrote > > > > == > > > > if (victim is not over soft-limit) > > > > == > > > > ....Maybe this discussion style is bad and I should explain my approach in patch. > > > > (I can't write code today, sorry.) > > > > > > > > This is an example of my direction, " do it lazy" softlimit. > > > > Maybe this is not perfect but this addresses almost all my concern. > > I hope this will be an input for you. > > I didn't divide patch into small pieces intentionally to show a big picture. > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > == > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > An example patch. Don't trust me, this patch may have bugs. > > > > Well this is not do it lazy, all memcg's are scanned tree is built everytime > kswapd invokes soft limit reclaim. tree is built ? no. there are not tree. And this is lazy. No impact until kswapd runs.
> With 100 cgroups and 5 nodes, we'll > end up scanning cgroups 500 times. No. 100 cgroups. (kswapd works per node and all kswapd doesn't work at once.)
> There is no ordering of selected victims, I don't think this is necessary but if you want you can add it easily.
> so the largest victim might still be running unaffected. > No problem from my point of view.
"Soft limit" is a hint from the user to show "if usage is larger than this, recalaim from this cgroup is appropriate"
Thanks, -Kame
| |