Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:37:00 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches |
| |
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530 Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature > > for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the > > group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits > > below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those > > approaches in favour of this one. > > > > Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where > > the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory > > contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation > > provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not > > for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups > > that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that > > exceeds this limit by the maximum amount. > > > > This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion > > > > TODOs > > > > 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit > > implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add > > a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in > > a manner similar to the group scheduler > > Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory > proportionally? > I don't like to add "share" as the kernel interface of memcg. We used "bytes" to do (hard) limit. Please just use "bytes".
Thanks, -Kame
| |