Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757898AbZCLQZ6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:25:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757516AbZCLQXx (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:23:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.ultrahosting.com ([74.213.174.254]:41383 "EHLO smtp.ultrahosting.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757535AbZCLQXw (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:23:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@qirst.com To: Paul Menage cc: David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrew Morton , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch -mm] cpusets: add memory_slab_hardwall flag In-Reply-To: <6599ad830903101512g16a8eda3w959123e71c225960@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20090309123011.A228.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090309181756.CF66.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830903101512g16a8eda3w959123e71c225960@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1375 Lines: 30 On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Paul Menage wrote: > We definitely have real workloads where a job is allocating lots of > slab memory (e.g. network socket buffers, dentry/inode objects, etc) > and we want to be able to account the memory usage to each job rather > than having all the slab scattered around unidentifiably, and to > reduce fragmentation (so when a job finishes, all its sockets close > and all its files are deleted, there's a better chance that we'll be > able to reclaim some slab memory). We could probably turn those into > more synthetic benchmarkable loads if necessary for demonstration. So this is about memory accounting? The kernel tracks all memory used by a process and releases it independantly from this patch. The resources that you are mentioning are resources that are typically shared by multiple processes. There no task owning these items. It is accidental that a certain process is exclusively using one of these at a time. The real workloads are running in cpusets that are overlapping? Why would this be done? The point of cpusets is typically to segment the processors for a certain purpose. -- 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/