Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:37:25 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1 |
| |
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-31 14:11:40]:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:31:43 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-31 09:06:07]: > > > > > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:57:47 +0530 > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > * Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-03-28 23:41:00]: > > > > > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-27 13:59:33]: > > > > > > > > > > > ==brief test result== > > > > > > On 2CPU/1.6GB bytes machine. create group A and B > > > > > > A. soft limit=300M > > > > > > B. no soft limit > > > > > > > > > > > > Run a malloc() program on B and allcoate 1G of memory. The program just > > > > > > sleeps after allocating memory and no memory refernce after it. > > > > > > Run make -j 6 and compile the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > When vm.swappiness = 60 => 60MB of memory are swapped out from B. > > > > > > When vm.swappiness = 10 => 1MB of memory are swapped out from B > > > > > > > > > > > > If no soft limit, 350MB of swap out will happen from B.(swapiness=60) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I ran the same tests, booted the machine with mem=1700M and maxcpus=2 > > > > > > > > > > Here is what I see with > > > > > > > > I meant to say, Here is what I see with my patches (v7) > > > > > > > > > > your malloc program is like this ? > > > > > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > { > > > c = malloc(1G); > > > memset(c, 0, 1G); > > > getc(); > > > } > > > > > > > Very similar, instead of memset, we go integer by integer and set it > > to 0, do two loops of touching and wait for user input before exiting. > > > Why two loops of touching ? has special meanings ?
The number of loops are configurable and can be used to keep pages active. The default loops is two. It has no special meaning in the test scenario described.
-- Balbir
| |