lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFD] Isolated memory cgroups again
On Fri 21-10-11 21:34:06, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:29 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:33:09 -0700
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >> this is a request for discussion (I hope we can touch this during memcg
> >> meeting during the upcoming KS). I have brought this up earlier this
> >> year before LSF (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/60464).
> >> The patch got much smaller since then due to excellent Johannes' memcg
> >> naturalization work (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68724)
> >> which this is based on.
> >
>
> Hi, Michal

Hi Balbir,

>
> I'd like to understand, what the isolation is for?
>
> 1. Is it an alternative to memory guarantees?

Not really, it is more about resident working set guarantee and workload
isolations wrt. memory.

> 2. How is this different from doing cpusets (fake NUMA) and isolating them?

Yes this would work. I have not many experiences in this area but I
guess the primary stopper for fake NUMA is that it is x86_64 only,
configuration is static and little bit awkward to use (nodes of the same
size e.g.).
I understood that google is moving out of fake NUMA towards memcg for those
reasons.

>
> Just trying to catch up,
> Balbir

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-22 11:29    [W:0.028 / U:9.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site