lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove memory.limit v.s. memsw.limit comparison.
    * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-06-04 14:10:43]:

    > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    >
    > Removes memory.limit < memsw.limit at setting limit check completely.
    >
    > The limitation "memory.limit <= memsw.limit" was added just because
    > it seems sane ...if memory.limit > memsw.limit, only memsw.limit works.
    >
    > But To implement this limitation, we needed to use private mutex and make
    > the code a bit complated.
    > As Nishimura pointed out, in real world, there are people who only want
    > to use memsw.limit.
    >
    > Then, this patch removes the check. user-land library or middleware can check
    > this in userland easily if this really concerns.
    >
    > And this is a good change to charge-and-reclaim.
    >
    > Now, memory.limit is always checked before memsw.limit
    > and it may do swap-out. But, if memory.limit == memsw.limit, swap-out is
    > finally no help and hits memsw.limit again. So, let's allow the condition
    > memory.limit > memsw.limit. Then we can skip unnecesary swap-out.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

    We can't change behaviour this way without breaking userspace scripts,
    API and code. What does it mean for people already using these
    features? Does it break their workflow?

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-04 10:35    [W:0.023 / U:92.956 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site