Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750904AbXBSKjf (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:39:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750913AbXBSKjf (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:39:35 -0500 Received: from ausmtp04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.152]:55396 "EHLO ausmtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750899AbXBSKje (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:39:34 -0500 Message-ID: <45D97E5E.7060603@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:09:26 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@in.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Menage CC: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, xemul@sw.ru, linux-mm@kvack.org, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][0/4] Memory controller (RSS Control) References: <20070219065019.3626.33947.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6599ad830702190106m3f391de4x170326fef2e4872@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830702190106m3f391de4x170326fef2e4872@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 42 Paul Menage wrote: > On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> 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. > > I think it's OK for a container to consume lots of system time during > reclaim, as long as we can account that time to the container involved > (i.e. if it's done during direct reclaim rather than by something like > kswapd). > > Churning the LRU could well be bad though, I agree. > I completely agree with you on reclaim consuming time. Churning the LRU can be avoided by the means I mentioned before 1. Add a container pointer (per page struct), it is also useful for the page cache controller 2. Check if the page belongs to a particular container before the list_del(&page->lru), so that those pages can be skipped. 3. Use a double LRU list by overloading the lru list_head of struct page. > Paul > -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh - 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/