lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] Memory controller soft limit organize cgroups
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:55:58 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-01-08 10:11:48]:
> > Hmm, Could you clarify following ?
> >
> > - Usage of memory at insertsion and usage of memory at reclaim is different.
> > So, this *sorted* order by RB-tree isn't the best order in general.
>
> True, but we frequently update the tree at an interval of HZ/4.
> Updating at every page fault sounded like an overkill and building the
> entire tree at reclaim is an overkill too.
>
"sort" is not necessary.
If this feature is implemented as background daemon,
just select the worst one at each iteration is enough.


> > Why don't you sort this at memory-reclaim dynamically ?
> > - Considering above, the look of RB tree can be
> >
> > +30M (an amount over soft limit is 30M)
> > / \
> > -15M +60M
>
> We don't have elements below their soft limit in the tree
>
> > ?
> >
> > At least, pleease remove the node at uncharge() when the usage goes down.
> >
>
> We do remove the tree if it goes under its soft limit at commit_charge,
> I thought I had the same code in uncharge(), but clearly that is
> missing. Thanks, I'll add it there.
>

Ah, ok. I missed it. Thank you for clalification.

Regards,
-Kame



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-08 05:33    [W:0.051 / U:30.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site