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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans