Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755122AbWKQOET (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:04:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755689AbWKQOET (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:04:19 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:17076 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755665AbWKQOES (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:04:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:05:13 +0000 From: Alan To: Patrick.Le-Dot@bull.net (Patrick.Le-Dot) Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, dev@openvz.org, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rohitseth@google.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/8] RSS controller task migration support Message-ID: <20061117140513.07da6fd9@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20061117132533.A5FCF1B6A2@openx4.frec.bull.fr> References: <20061117132533.A5FCF1B6A2@openx4.frec.bull.fr> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1615 Lines: 36 On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:25:33 +0100 (CET) > For a customer the main reason to use guarantee is to be sure that > some pages of a job remain in memory when the system is low on free > memory. This should be true even for a job in group/container A with That actually doesn't appear a very useful definition. There are two reasons for wanting memory guarantees #1 To be sure a user can't toast the entire box but just their own compartment (eg web hosting) #2 To ensure all apps continue to make progress The simple approach doesn't seem to work for either. There is a threshold above which #1 and #2 are the same thing, below that trying to keep a few pages in memory will thrash not make progress and will harm overall behaviour thus failing to solve #1 or #2. At that point you have to decide whether what you have is a misconfiguration or whether the system should be prepared to do temporary cycling overcommits so containers take it in turn to make progress when overcommitted. > If the limit is a "hard limit" then we have implemented reservation and > this is too strict. Thats fundamentally a judgement based on your particular workload and constraints. If I am web hosting then I don't generally care if my end users compartment blows up under excess load, I care that the other 200 customers using the box don't suffer and all phone me to complain. Alan - 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/