Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v9)

Balbir Singh
2009-07-15T04:48:58Z

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-07-15 13:33:24]:

> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:38:11 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-07-10 18:29:50]:
> >
> > >
> > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > New Feature: Soft limits for memory resource controller.
> > >
> > > Here is v9 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. The CPU controllers interpretation
> > > of shares is very different though.
> > >
> >
> > If there are no objections to these patches, could we pick them up for
> > testing in mmotm.
> >
>
> If any, will be fixed up in mmotm. About behavior, I don't have more things
> than I've said. (dealying kswapd is not very good.)
>
> But plz discuss with Vladislav Buzov about implementation details of [2..3/5].
> ==
> [PATCH 1/2] Resource usage threshold notification addition to res_counter (v3)
>
> It seems there are multiple functionalities you can shere with them.
>
> - hierarchical threshold check
> - callback or notify agaisnt threshold.
> etc..
>
> I'm very happy if all messy things around res_counter+hierarchy are sorted out
> before diving into melting pot. I hope both of you have nice interfaces and
> keep res_counter neat.
>

I do see scope for reuse, but I've not yet gotten to reviewing v3 of
the patches. I will, I could potentially get him to base his patches
on top of this. One of the interesting things that Paul pointed out
was of global state.