lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-08 01:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans