Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:12:26 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit. | From | "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <> |
| |
Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-29 > 00:06:23]: > >> Balbir Singh wrote: >> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-28 >> > 23:40:56]: >> > >> >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> >> > Balbir Singh wrote: >> >> >> But Bob and Mike might need to set soft limits between themselves. >> if >> >> >> soft limit of gold is 1G and bob needs to be close to 750M and >> mike >> >> >> 250M, how do we do it without supporting what we have today? >> >> >> >> >> > Don't use hierarchy or don't use softlimit. >> >> > (I never think fine-grain soft limit can be useful.) >> >> > >> >> > Anyway, I have to modify unnecessary hacks for res_counter of >> >> softlimit. >> >> > plz allow modification. that's bad. >> >> > I postpone RB-tree breakage problem, plz explain it or fix it by >> >> yourself. >> >> > >> >> I changed my mind....per-zone RB-tree is also broken ;) >> >> >> >> Why I don't like broken system is a function which a user can't >> >> know/calculate how-it-works is of no use in mission critical systems. >> >> >> >> I'd like to think how-to-fix it with better algorithm. Maybe RB-tree >> >> is not a choice. >> >> >> > >> > Soft limits are not meant for mission critical work :-) Soft limits is >> > best effort and not a guaranteed resource allocation mechanism. I've >> > mentioned in previous emails how we recover if we find the data is >> > stale >> > >> yes. but can you explain how selection will be done to users ? >> I can't. >> > > From a user point, we get what we set, but the timelines can be a > little longer. > I'll drop this patch, anyway. But will modify res_counter. We have to reduce ops under lock after we see spinlock can explode system time.
Thanks, -Kame
| |