Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) | From | Rohit Seth <> | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:59:06 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 09:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:45:48 -0700 > Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:08 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > > > > > > A) Have separate memory management for each container, > > > with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism. > > > That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there > > > is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers. > > > > Hold on here for just a sec... > > > > It is quite possible to do memory management aimed at one container > > while that container's memory still participates in the main VM. > > > > There is overhead here, as the LRU scanning mechanisms get less > > efficient, but I'd rather pay a penalty at LRU scanning time than divide > > up the VM, or coarsely start failing allocations. > > > > I have this mad idea that you can divide a 128GB machine up into 256 fake > NUMA nodes, then you use each "node" as a 512MB unit of memory allocation. > So that 4.5GB job would be placed within an exclusive cpuset which has nine > "mems" (what are these called?) and voila: the job has a hard 4.5GB limit, > no kernel changes needed. > Sounds like an interesting idea. Will have to depend on something like memory hot-plug to get the things move around...
-rohit
> Unfortunately this is not testable because numa=fake=256 doesn't come even > vaguely close to working. Am trying to get that fixed.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |