From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 805736B003D for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:26:19 -0700 From: Elladan Subject: Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response Message-ID: <20090428072619.GA29747@eskimo.com> References: <20090428143019.EBBF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090428063625.GA17785@eskimo.com> <20090428154835.EBC9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090428154835.EBC9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Elladan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , Rik van Riel List-ID: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:52:29PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi > > > 3. cache limitation of memcgroup solve this problem? > > > > I was unable to get this to work -- do you have some documentation handy? > > Do you have kernel source tarball? > Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt explain usage kindly. Thank you. My documentation was out of date. I created a cgroup with limited memory and placed a copy command in it, and the latency problem seems to essentially go away. However, I'm also a bit suspicious that my test might have become invalid, since my IO performance seems to have dropped somewhat too. So, am I right in concluding that this more or less implicates bad page replacement as the culprit? After I dropped vm caches and let my working set re-form, the memory cgroup seems to be effective at keeping a large pool of memory free from file pressure. -- 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