Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932077AbWHVBYw (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:24:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932078AbWHVBYw (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:24:52 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:30557 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932077AbWHVBYv (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:24:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=SZ7a7OvEJ0xMZC9g/sWDOUNqqO8xcOzdDnWranj9RICirSDHu0sI0+zk+C/Sx1GRc ji12HmlkGW5Jy2TWepPUw== Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Pavel Emelianov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Rik van Riel , hugh@veritas.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <44E98E61.2030608@sw.ru> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C8A.6030705@sw.ru> <1155752693.22595.76.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E46ED3.7000201@sw.ru> <1155834136.14617.29.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E58A89.8040001@sw.ru> <1155920158.22899.8.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E98E61.2030608@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:23:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1156209812.11127.20.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:43 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>1. reclaiming user resources is not that good idea as it looks to you. > >>such solutions end up with lots of resources spent on reclaim. > >>for user memory reclaims mean consumption of expensive disk I/O bandwidth > >>which reduces overall system throughput and influences other users. > >> > > > > > > May be I'm overlooking something very obvious. Please tell me, what > > happens when a user hits a page fault and the page allocator is easily > > able to give a page from its pcp list. But container is over its limit > > of physical memory. In your patch there is no attempt by container > > support to see if some of the user pages are easily reclaimable. What > > options a user will have to make sure some room is created. > The patch set send doesn't control user memory! > This topic is about kernel memory... > And that is why I asked the question in the very first mail (if this support is going to come later). -rohit - 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/