Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759236AbYFDI7v (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:59:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752620AbYFDI7m (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:59:42 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:21635 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753201AbYFDI7k (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:59:40 -0400 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=nU5JRjCMAtp94es1Mt1v1P+OiXzpzt2VwFTj0G3/sMVeaMsuo/1NQ0OLT45TY28rd bIFJD0Bm06lU7AFb4HXaA== Message-ID: <6599ad830806040159o648392a1l3dbd84d9c765a847@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:59:32 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] memcg: hierarchy support (v3) Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "xemul@openvz.org" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" In-Reply-To: <20080604135815.498eaf82.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080604135815.498eaf82.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 37 Hi Kame, I like the idea of keeping the kernel simple, and moving more of the intelligence to userspace. It may need the kernel to expose a bit more in the way of VM details, such as memory pressure, OOM notifications, etc, but as long as userspace can respond quickly to memory imbalance, it should work fine. We're doing something a bit similar using cpusets and fake NUMA at Google - the principle of juggling memory between cpusets is the same, but the granularity is much worse :-) On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > - supported hierarchy_model parameter. > Now, no_hierarchy and hardwall_hierarchy is implemented. Should we try to support hierarchy and non-hierarchy cgroups in the same tree? Maybe we should just enforce the restrictions that: - the hierarchy mode can't be changed on a cgroup if you have children or any non-zero usage/limit - a cgroup inherits its parent's hierarchy mode. > - parent overcommits all children I'm not sure that "overcommits" is the right word here - specifically, the model ensures that a parent can't overcommit its children beyond its limit. 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/