From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090107184110.18062.41459.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature
> for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the
> group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits
> below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those
> approaches in favour of this one.
>
> Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where
> the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory
> contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation
> provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not
> for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups
> that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that
> exceeds this limit by the maximum amount.
>
> This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion
>
> TODOs
>
> 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit
> implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add
> a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in
> a manner similar to the group scheduler
Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory
proportionally?
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090107184110.18062.41459.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature
> for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the
> group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits
> below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those
> approaches in favour of this one.
>
> Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where
> the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory
> contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation
> provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not
> for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups
> that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that
> exceeds this limit by the maximum amount.
>
> This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion
>
> TODOs
>
> 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit
> implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add
> a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in
> a manner similar to the group scheduler
Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory
proportionally?
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-07 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-07 18:41 [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/4] Memory controller soft limit documentation Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-14 1:45 ` Paul Menage
2009-01-14 1:45 ` Paul Menage
2009-01-14 5:30 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-14 5:30 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/4] Memory controller soft limit organize cgroups Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 1:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 1:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:25 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 4:25 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 4:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 4:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 4:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-07 18:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:41 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 18:56 ` Dhaval Giani [this message]
2009-01-07 18:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches Dhaval Giani
2009-01-08 0:37 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 0:37 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 3:46 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 3:46 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 0:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 0:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 3:59 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 3:59 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-08 4:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-01-08 4:41 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-01-08 4:41 ` Daisuke Nishimura
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=skumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
--cc=yamamoto@valinux.co.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.