lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v4)
    On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:53:23 +0530
    Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    >
    > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    >
    > New Feature: Soft limits for memory resource controller.
    >
    > Changelog v4...v3
    > 1. Adopted suggestions from Kamezawa to do a per-zone-per-node reclaim
    > while doing soft limit reclaim. We don't record priorities while
    > doing soft reclaim
    > 2. Some of the overheads associated with soft limits (like calculating
    > excess each time) is eliminated
    > 3. The time_after(jiffies, 0) bug has been fixed
    > 4. Tasks are throttled if the mem cgroup they belong to is being soft reclaimed
    > and at the same time tasks are increasing the memory footprint and causing
    > the mem cgroup to exceed its soft limit.
    >
    I don't think this "4" is necessary.


    > Changelog v3...v2
    > 1. Implemented several review comments from Kosaki-San and Kamezawa-San
    > Please see individual changelogs for changes
    >
    > Changelog v2...v1
    > 1. Soft limits now support hierarchies
    > 2. Use spinlocks instead of mutexes for synchronization of the RB tree
    >
    > Here is v4 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature
    > for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the
    > group scheduler in the form of shares. The CPU controllers interpretation
    > of shares is very different though.
    >
    > Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where
    > the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory
    > contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation
    > provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not
    > for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups
    > that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that
    > exceeds this limit by the maximum amount.
    >
    > If there are no major objections to the patches, I would like to get them
    > included in -mm.
    >
    You got Nack from me, again ;) And you know why.
    I'll post my one later, I hope that one will be good input for you.

    Thanks,
    -Kame




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-06 10:59    [W:0.029 / U:30.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site