Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-23 15:35:50]:

> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:45 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:52:47 +0530
> > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > I have one large swap partition, so I could not test the partial-swap
> > > > scenario.
> > > > 
> > > plz go ahead as you like, Seems no landing point now and I'd like to see
> > > what I can, later. I'll send no ACK nor NACK, more.
> > > 
> > But I dislike the whole concept, at all.
> 
> 
> Kamezawa-san, This implementation is suck. but I think softlimit concept 
> itself isn't suck.
> 

Just because of the reclaim factor? Feel free to improve it
iteratively. Like I said to Kamezawa, don't over optimize in the first
iteration. Pre-mature optimization is the root of all evil.

> So, I would suggested discuss this feature based on your 
> "memcg softlimit (Another one) v4" patch. I exept I can ack it after few spin.

Kame's implementation sucked quite badly, please see my posted test
results. Basic, bare minimum functionality did not work.


-- 
	Balbir

--
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>