Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965326AbWHXBXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:23:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965325AbWHXBXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:23:19 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:64567 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965326AbWHXBXS (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:23:18 -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=cdVdncWsWGHk7zqPmR7swt5bzu/6uc3KggCQuuFbsJYhZzMvYdC/G+DUyqpw6TCuJ NnjXTMqAXhwjupDgxqA7Q== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Magnus Damm 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: <1156219087.21411.89.camel@localhost> 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> <1156219087.21411.89.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:20:35 -0700 Message-Id: <1156382435.8324.31.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: 2076 Lines: 48 On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 12:58 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > 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, [Apologies for late reply..] Yup, if we run with fake NUMA support for providing container functionality then dynamic resizing will be important (and that is why I made the initial comment of possibly using memory hot-plug) > while the CKRM > (and pzone) approach provides a more dynamic (and complex) solution. ...this complexity is not always a positive thing ;-) (I do like core of CKRM stuff FWIW). -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/