Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750891AbXBSKpL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:45:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750898AbXBSKpL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:45:11 -0500 Received: from ausmtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.154]:53635 "EHLO ausmtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750891AbXBSKpJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:45:09 -0500 Message-ID: <45D97FAD.9070009@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:15:01 +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: Magnus Damm CC: Andrew Morton , 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 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][0/4] Memory controller (RSS Control) References: <20070219065019.3626.33947.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: 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: 1798 Lines: 50 Magnus Damm wrote: > 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? > Thanks, I totally agree. > 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 Keeping unmapped pages per container sounds interesting. I am not quite sure what PTE ageing, will it look it up. -- 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/