Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:35:34 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v4) |
| |
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-06 18:54:40]:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:53:23 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > New Feature: Soft limits for memory resource controller. > > > > Changelog v4...v3 > > 1. Adopted suggestions from Kamezawa to do a per-zone-per-node reclaim > > while doing soft limit reclaim. We don't record priorities while > > doing soft reclaim > > 2. Some of the overheads associated with soft limits (like calculating > > excess each time) is eliminated > > 3. The time_after(jiffies, 0) bug has been fixed > > 4. Tasks are throttled if the mem cgroup they belong to is being soft reclaimed > > and at the same time tasks are increasing the memory footprint and causing > > the mem cgroup to exceed its soft limit. > > > I don't think this "4" is necessary. >
I responded to it and I had asked for review for this. Lets discuss it there. I am open to doing this or not.
> > > Changelog v3...v2 > > 1. Implemented several review comments from Kosaki-San and Kamezawa-San > > Please see individual changelogs for changes > > > > Changelog v2...v1 > > 1. Soft limits now support hierarchies > > 2. Use spinlocks instead of mutexes for synchronization of the RB tree > > > > Here is v4 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. The CPU controllers interpretation > > of shares is very different though. > > > > 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. > > > > If there are no major objections to the patches, I would like to get them > > included in -mm. > > > You got Nack from me, again ;) And you know why. > I'll post my one later, I hope that one will be good input for you. >
Lets discuss the patches and your objections. I suspect it is because of 4 above, but I don't want to keep guessing.
-- Balbir
| |