Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750968AbWIUBpZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:45:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750976AbWIUBpZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:45:25 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:55237 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750968AbWIUBpX (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:45:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Paul Menage Cc: Paul Jackson , npiggin@suse.de, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org, clameter@sgi.com In-Reply-To: <6599ad830609201742h71d112f4tae8fe390cb874c0b@mail.google.com> References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158777240.6536.89.camel@linuxchandra> <1158798715.6536.115.camel@linuxchandra> <20060920173638.370e774a.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830609201742h71d112f4tae8fe390cb874c0b@mail.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:45:20 -0700 Message-Id: <1158803120.6536.139.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: 1624 Lines: 42 On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 17:42 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On 9/20/06, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Chandra wrote: > > > AFAICS, That doesn't help me in over committing resources. > > > > I agree - I don't think cpusets plus fake numa ... handles over commit. > > You might could hack up a cheap substitute, but it wouldn't do the job. > > I have some patches locally that basically let you give out a small > set of nodes initially to a cpuset, and if memory pressure in > try_to_free_pages() passes a specified threshold, automatically > allocate one of the parent cpuset's unused memory nodes to the child > cpuset, up to specified limit. It's a bit ugly, but lets you trade of > performance vs memory footprint on a per-job basis (when combined with > fake numa to give lots of small nodes). Interesting. So you could set up the fake node with "guarantee" and let it grow till "limit" ? BTW, can you do these with fake nodes: - dynamic creation - dynamic removal - dynamic change of size Also, How could we account when a process moves from one node to another ? > > Paul -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/