[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: What can we do to get ready for memory controller merge in 2.6.25
    Nick Piggin wrote:
    > On Friday 30 November 2007 01:43, Balbir Singh wrote:
    >> They say better strike when the iron is hot.
    >> Since we have so many people discussing the memory controller, I would
    >> like to access the readiness of the memory controller for mainline
    >> merge. Given that we have some time until the merge window, I'd like to
    >> set aside some time (from my other work items) to work on the memory
    >> controller, fix review comments and defects.
    >> In the past, we've received several useful comments from Rik Van Riel,
    >> Lee Schermerhorn, Peter Zijlstra, Hugh Dickins, Nick Piggin, Paul Menage
    >> and code contributions and bug fixes from Hugh Dickins, Pavel Emelianov,
    >> Lee Schermerhorn, YAMAMOTO-San, Andrew Morton and KAMEZAWA-San. I
    >> apologize if I missed out any other names or contributions
    >> At the VM-Summit we decided to try the current double LRU approach for
    >> memory control. At this juncture in the space-time continuum, I seek
    >> your support, feedback, comments and help to move the memory controller
    > Do you have any test cases, performance numbers, etc.? And also some
    > results or even anecdotes of where this is going to be used would be
    > interesting...

    Some test results were posted at

    Some results for the RSS controller can be found in the OLS paper

    and at

    As far as test cases are concerned, I have a simple test case that I use
    that allocates memory and touches all the allocated memory in a loop. I
    can post that out if required. It uses various types of allocation

    1. mmaped memory
    2. anonymous memory
    3. shared memory

    I also run various benchmarks inside a control group, limited to 400 MB
    of RAM.

    One interesting that I noticed was that when I booted with mem=<some
    memory> and created a container with the same <some value>. The swapout
    test case ran much faster in the container (NOTE: This was prior to the
    swap cache changes).

    KAMEZAWA-San posted some test results on background reclaim and per zone

    The simplest use cases that come to mind are

    1. Memory control for containers/virtualization
    2. Job Isolation

    Warm Regards,
    Balbir Singh
    Linux Technology Center
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-30 04:17    [W:0.046 / U:2.304 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site