lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3)
    * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-10 09:43:44]:

    > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:32:29 +0900
    > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >
    > > 1. you use res_counter_read_positive() in force_empty. It seems force_empty can
    > > go into infinite loop. plz check. (especially when some pages are freed or swapped-in
    > > in other cpu while force_empry runs.)
    > >
    > > 2. In near future, we'll see 256 or 1024 cpus on a system, anyway.
    > > Assume 1024cpu system, 64k*1024=64M is a tolerance.
    > > Can't we calculate max-tolerane as following ?
    > >
    > > tolerance = min(64k * num_online_cpus(), limit_in_bytes/100);
    > > tolerance /= num_online_cpus();
    > > per_cpu_tolerance = min(16k, tolelance);
    > >
    > > I think automatic runtine adjusting of tolerance will be finally necessary,
    > > but above will not be very bad because we can guarantee 1% tolerance.
    > >
    >
    > Sorry, one more.
    >
    > 3. As I requested when you pushed softlimit changes to mmotom, plz consider
    > to implement a way to check-and-notify gadget to res_counter.
    > See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=124753058921677&w=2
    >

    Yes, I will do that, but only after the scaling, since this is more
    important at the moment.

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-10 07:25    [W:0.047 / U:0.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site