[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:47:56 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:37:02 -0700
>> Ying Han <> wrote:
>> > The approach we are thinking to make the page->lru exclusive solve the
>> > problem. and also we should be able to break the zone->lru_lock
>> > sharing.
>> >
>> Is zone->lru_lock is a problem even with the help of pagevecs ?
>> If LRU management guys acks you to isolate LRUs and to make kswapd etc..
>> more complex, okay, we'll go that way. This will _change_ the whole
>> memcg design and concepts Maybe memcg should have some kind of balloon driver to
>> work happy with isolated lru.
>> But my current standing position is "never bad effects global reclaim".
>> So, I'm not very happy with the solution.
>> If we go that way, I guess we'll think we should have pseudo nodes/zones, which
>> was proposed in early days of resource controls.(not cgroup).
> BTW, against isolation, I have one thought.
> Now, soft_limit_reclaim is not called in direct-reclaim path just because we thought
> kswapd works enough well. If necessary, I think we can put soft-reclaim call in
> generic do_try_to_free_pages(order=0).

We were talking about that internally and that definitely make sense to add.

> So, isolation problem can be reduced to some extent, isn't it ?
> Algorithm of softlimit _should_ be updated. I guess it's not heavily tested feature.

Agree and that is something we might want to go and fix. soft_limit in
general provides a nice way to
over_committing the machine, and still have control of doing target
reclaim under system memory pressure.

> About ROOT cgroup, I think some daemon application should put _all_ process to
> some controled cgroup. So, I don't want to think about limiting on ROOT cgroup
> without any justification.
> I'd like you to devide 'the talk on performance' and 'the talk on feature'.
> "This makes makes performance better! ...and add an feature" sounds bad to me.

Ok, then let's stick on the memory isolation feature now :)

> Thanks,
> -Kame

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-29 05:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans