lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:50:06 +0900
    KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:


    > ==
    > if (scan_global_lru(sc)) {
    > if (!cpuset_zone_allowed_hardwall(zone, GFP_KERNEL))
    > continue;
    > note_zone_scanning_priority(zone, priority);
    >
    > if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone) &&
    > priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
    > continue; /* Let kswapd poll it */
    > sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
    > } else {
    > /*
    > * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
    > * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
    > */
    > sc->all_unreclaimable = 0;
    > mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(sc->mem_cgroup,
    > priority);
    > }
    > ==
    >
    > First point is (maybe) my mistake. We have to add cpuset hardwall check to memcg
    > part. (I will write a patch soon.)
    >

    I found my comment seems to say some correct thing..
    ==
    /*
    * Ignore cpuset limitation here. We just want to reduce
    * # of used pages by us regardless of memory shortage.
    */
    ==
    When we handle memory shortage, we'll have to change this mind.

    But I can think of another example easily...
    ==
    MemcgA: limit=1G
    CpusetX: mem=0
    CpusetY: mem=1
    taskP = MemcgA+CpusetX
    taskQ = MemcgA+CpusetY
    ==
    In this case, we just want to reduce the usage of memory....nonsense ?

    Hmm..I should refresh my brain and revisit this later.
    Any inputs are welcome.

    Thanks,
    -Kame






    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-30 04:01    [W:0.035 / U:63.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site