Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751156AbWHVD5y (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:57:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751229AbWHVD5y (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:57:54 -0400 Received: from sv1.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.2]:7837 "EHLO sv1.valinux.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751156AbWHVD5x (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:57:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) From: Magnus Damm To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Dave Hansen , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Kirill Korotaev , Alan Cox , Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <1156209379.11127.15.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C3F.3010509@sw.ru> <1155752277.22595.70.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155755069.24077.392.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155756170.22595.109.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E45D6A.8000003@sw.ru> <20060817084033.f199d4c7.akpm@osdl.org> <20060818120809.B11407@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <1155912348.9274.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1156128426.21411.41.camel@localhost> <1156209379.11127.15.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:58:07 +0900 Message-Id: <1156219087.21411.89.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1645 Lines: 36 On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 18:16 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:47 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 07:45 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:08 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > > > > > > > > A) Have separate memory management for each container, > > > > with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism. > > > > That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there > > > > is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers. > > > > > > Hold on here for just a sec... > > > > > > It is quite possible to do memory management aimed at one container > > > while that container's memory still participates in the main VM. > > > > > > There is overhead here, as the LRU scanning mechanisms get less > > > efficient, but I'd rather pay a penalty at LRU scanning time than divide > > > up the VM, or coarsely start failing allocations. > > > > This could of course be solved with one LRU per container, which is how > > the CKRM memory controller implemented things about a year ago. > > Effectively Andrew's idea of faking up nodes is also giving per > container LRUs. Yes, but the NUMA emulation approach is using fixed size containers where the size is selectable at the kernel command line, while the CKRM (and pzone) approach provides a more dynamic (and complex) solution. / magnus - 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/