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)
    * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-06 18:54:40]:

    > 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.
    >

    I responded to it and I had asked for review for this. Lets discuss it
    there. I am open to doing this or not.

    >
    > > 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.
    >

    Lets discuss the patches and your objections. I suspect it is because
    of 4 above, but I don't want to keep guessing.

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-06 11:09    [W:0.025 / U:30.368 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site