Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932306AbWHGSoI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932307AbWHGSoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:07 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:25058 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932306AbWHGSoG (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller From: Dave Hansen To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Kirill Korotaev , "Martin J. Bligh" , vatsa@in.ibm.com, Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, sam@vilain.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvz.org, efault@gmx.de, balbir@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, nagar@watson.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com, Andrey Savochkin In-Reply-To: <1154975486.31962.40.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> References: <20060804050753.GD27194@in.ibm.com> <20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060803224253.49068b98.akpm@osdl.org> <1154684950.23655.178.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060804114109.GA28988@in.ibm.com> <44D35F0B.5000801@sw.ru> <44D388DF.8010406@mbligh.org> <44D6EAFA.8080607@sw.ru> <44D74F77.7080000@mbligh.org> <44D76B43.5080507@sw.ru> <1154975486.31962.40.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:43:56 -0700 Message-Id: <1154976236.19249.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1250 Lines: 27 On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:31 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > I think it is not a problem for OpenVZ because there is not that much > of > sharing going between containers as you mentioned (btw, this least > amount of sharing is a very good thing). Though I'm not sure if one > has > to go to the extent of doing fractions with memory accounting. If the > containers are set up in such a way that there is some sharing across > containers then it is okay to be unfair and charge one of those > containers for the specific resource completely. Right, and if you do reclaim against containers which are over their limits, the containers being unfairly charged will tend to get hit first. But, once this happens, I would hope that the ownership of those shared pages should settle out among all of the users. If you have 100 containers sharing 100 pages, container0 might be charged for all 100 pages at first, but I'd hope that eventually containers 0->99 would each get charged for a single page. -- Dave - 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/