Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:56:42 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-05 18:04:10]:
> 
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I wrote
> > > > ==
> > > >  if (victim is not over soft-limit)
> > > > ==
> > > > ....Maybe this discussion style is bad and I should explain my approach in patch.
> > > > (I can't write code today, sorry.)
> > > > 
> > 
> > This is an example of my direction, " do it lazy" softlimit.
> > 
> > Maybe this is not perfect but this addresses almost all my concern.
> > I hope this will be an input for you.
> > I didn't divide patch into small pieces intentionally to show a big picture.
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
> > ==
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > An example patch. Don't trust me, this patch may have bugs.
> >
> 
> Well this is not do it lazy, all memcg's are scanned tree is built everytime
> kswapd invokes soft limit reclaim. With 100 cgroups and 5 nodes, we'll
> end up scanning cgroups 500 times. There is no ordering of selected
> victims, so the largest victim might still be running unaffected.
> 
I think of more reasonable one. I'll post today if it goes well.

Thanks,
-Kame



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/