From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memory controller per zone patches take 2 [9/10] per-zone-lru for memory cgroup Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:04:23 +0530 Message-ID: <47414A8F.8020807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20071116191107.46dd523a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20071116192642.8c7f07c9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <473F2A1A.8000703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119104826.e4ba02ca.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47412B5B.80409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119153549.d6f6f1de.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071119153549.d6f6f1de.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org" , "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "yamamoto-jCdQPDEk3idL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:51:15 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: >>> = >>> /cgroup/group_A/group_A_1 >>> . /group_A_2 >>> /group_A_3 >>> (LRU(s) will be used for maintaining parent/child groups.) >>> >> The LRU's will be shared, my vision is >> >> LRU >> ^ ^ >> | | >> Mem-----+ +----Mem >> >> >> That two or more mem_cgroup's can refer to the same LRU list and have >> their own resource counters. This setup will be used in the case >> of a hierarchy, so that a child can share memory with its parent >> and have it's own limit. >> >> The mem_cgroup will basically then only contain a reference >> to the LRU list. >> > Hmm, interesting. > > Then, > group_A_1's usage + group_A_2's usage + group_A_3's usgae < group_A's limit. > group_A_1, group_A_2, group_A_3 has its own limit. Yes that is correct > In plan. > > I wonder if we want rich control functions, we need "share" or "priority" among > childs. (but maybe this will be complicated one.) > That would nice and the end goal of providing this feature. We also need to provide soft-limits (more complex) and guarantees (with the kernel memory controller coming in - nice to have, but not necessary for now) > Thank you for explanation. > > Regards, > -Kame > Thanks for helping out the memory controller. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL