Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264733AbUD2VIA (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:08:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264644AbUD2UrB (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:47:01 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:30090 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264981AbUD2UmB (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:42:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:36:13 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Horst von Brand Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, jgarzik@pobox.com, akpm@osdl.org, brettspamacct@fastclick.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell Message-Id: <20040429133613.791f9f9b.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200404292001.i3TK1BYe005147@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> References: <40904A84.2030307@yahoo.com.au> <200404292001.i3TK1BYe005147@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1604 Lines: 31 > How on earth is the kernel supposed to know that for this one particular > job you don't care if it takes 3 hours instead of 10 minutes, I'd pay ten bucks (yeah, I'm a cheapskate) for an option that I could twiddle that would mark my nightly updatedb and backup jobs as ones to use reduced memory footprint (both for file caching and backing user virtual address space), even if it took much longer. So, rather than protest in mock outrage that it's impossible for the kernel to know this, instead answer the question as stated in all seriousness ... well ... how _could_ the kernel know, and what _could_ the kernel do if it knew. What mechanism(s) would be needed so that the kernel could restrict a jobs memory usage? Heh - indeed perhaps the answer is closer than I realize. For SGI's big NUMA boxes, managing memory placement is sufficiently critical that we are inventing or encouraging ways (such as Andi Kleen's numa stuff) to control memory placement per node per job. Perhaps this needs to be extended to portions of a node (this job can only use 1 Gb of the memory on that 2 Gb node) and to other memory uses (file cache, not just user space memory). -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/