Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423697AbWJaRWk (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:22:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423694AbWJaRWk (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:22:40 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:16069 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423697AbWJaRWk (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:22:40 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=Vq7pwknzedvXwcBosznbECRnaWFC/H11LeYJvjId5Z8GP3qOu7kzdNA3RyTwKeRE2 CM6UQK6EBOP9+9V3Y2M0w== Message-ID: <6599ad830610310922p61913cdaqb441a2cb718420a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:22:25 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: balbir@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller Cc: dev@openvz.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com In-Reply-To: <454782D2.3040208@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <4545D51A.1060808@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610300304l58e235f7td54ef8744e462a55@mail.gmail.com> <4545FDCD.3080107@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830610301014l1bf78ce8q998229483d055a90@mail.gmail.com> <454782D2.3040208@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1530 Lines: 40 On 10/31/06, Balbir Singh wrote: > > I am still a little concerned about how limit size changes will be implemented. > Will the cpuset "mems" field change to reflect the changed limits? That's how we've been doing it - increasing limits is easy, shrinking them is harder ... > > Page cache control is actually more essential that RSS control, in our > > experience - it's pretty easy to track RSS values from userspace, and > > react reasonably quickly to kill things that go over their limit, but > > determining page cache usage (i.e. determining which job on the system > > is flooding the page cache with dirty buffers) is pretty much > > impossible currently. > > > > Hmm... interesting. Why do you think its impossible, what are the kinds of > issues you've run into? > Issues such as: - determining from userspace how much of the page cache is really "free" memory that can be given out to new jobs without impacting the performance of existing jobs - determining which job on the system is flooding the page cache with dirty buffers - accounting the active pagecache usage of a job as part of its memory footprint (if a process is only 1MB large but is seeking randomly through a 1GB file, treating it as only using/needing 1MB isn't practical). Paul - 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/