Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932114AbWINXNa (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:13:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932116AbWINXNa (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:13:30 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:1211 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932114AbWINXN3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:13:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Rik van Riel , Srivatsa , Alan Cox , CKRM-Tech , balbir@in.ibm.com, Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <1158196948.20211.90.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> References: <44FD918A.7050501@sw.ru> <44FDAB81.5050608@in.ibm.com> <44FEC7E4.7030708@sw.ru> <44FF1EE4.3060005@in.ibm.com> <1157580371.31893.36.camel@linuxchandra> <45011CAC.2040502@openvz.org> <1157743424.19884.65.camel@linuxchandra> <1157751834.1214.112.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1157999107.6029.7.camel@linuxchandra> <1158001831.12947.16.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158003725.6029.60.camel@linuxchandra> <1158019099.12947.102.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158105253.4800.20.camel@linuxchandra> <1158107948.20211.47.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158109818.4800.39.camel@linuxchandra> <1158110751.20211.61.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158186046.18927.7.camel@linuxchandra> <1158196948.20211.90.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:13:23 -0700 Message-Id: <1158275603.6357.5.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1922 Lines: 56 On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 18:22 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > > Here are results of some of the benchmarks we have run in the past > > (April 2005) with CKRM which showed no/negligible performance impact in > > that scenario. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111325064322305&w=2 > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111385973226267&w=2 > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=111291409731929&w=2 > > > > > > These are good results. But I still think the cost will increase over a > period of time as more logic gets added. Any data on microbenchmarks IMO, overhead may not increase for a _non-user_ of the feature. > like lmbench. I think we have run those, but I could not find the results in the mailing list. > > > > > > > > > Not at all. If the container they are interested in is guaranteed, I do > > > > not see how apps running outside a container would affect them. > > > > > > > > > > Because the kernel (outside the container subsystem) doesn't know of > > > > The core resource subsystem (VM subsystem for memory) would know about > > the guarantees and don't cares, and it would handle it appropriately. > > > > ...meaning hooks in the generic kernel reclaim algorithm. Getting > something like that in mainline will be at best tricky. Yes, it does mean doing something in the reclamation path. > > > -rohit > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 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/