Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750772AbXBSJQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:16:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750777AbXBSJQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:16:45 -0500 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.186]:12319 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750772AbXBSJQo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:16:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HqCyUlftrbdDSbfzH7cDThIjxsrQn70IE5jV3W3/bc9wONETvO/U27flEF6OX2IZJ5VCzwvxu9N+w4M6Qjp8xSwgAWHI8wsCddqz8p7zKwkW85hQ48AvVE02WGkCOErJBD12NXGnORWJLdV+zw/fRTq2e4Qn002AijAgmRl98iE= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:16:42 +0900 From: "Magnus Damm" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][0/4] Memory controller (RSS Control) Cc: "Balbir Singh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, xemul@sw.ru, linux-mm@kvack.org, menage@google.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070219065019.3626.33947.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 35 On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:19 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > > This patch applies on top of Paul Menage's container patches (V7) posted at > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/88 > > > > It implements a controller within the containers framework for limiting > > memory usage (RSS usage). > The key part of this patchset is the reclaim algorithm: > > Alas, I fear this might have quite bad worst-case behaviour. One small > container which is under constant memory pressure will churn the > system-wide LRUs like mad, and will consume rather a lot of system time. > So it's a point at which container A can deleteriously affect things which > are running in other containers, which is exactly what we're supposed to > not do. Nice with a simple memory controller. The downside seems to be that it doesn't scale very well when it comes to reclaim, but maybe that just comes with being simple. Step by step, and maybe this is a good first step? Ideally I'd like to see unmapped pages handled on a per-container LRU with a fallback to the system-wide LRUs. Shared/mapped pages could be handled using PTE ageing/unmapping instead of page ageing, but that may consume too much resources to be practical. / magnus - 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/