From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51D06B00AF for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2N8OsM3006739 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:54:54 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2N8LQmx1786040 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:51:26 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2N8OsqP019775 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:54:54 +0530 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:54:42 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-ID: <20090323082441.GL24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090323151245.d6430aaa.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323151703.de2bf9db.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323153241.6A0F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323153241.6A0F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: * KOSAKI Motohiro [2009-03-23 15:35:50]: > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:45 +0900 > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:52:47 +0530 > > > Balbir Singh 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: email@kvack.org