From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9106B004D for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp02.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7SFFUmn011563 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:30 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7SFFTA12543668 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:29 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7SFFTkk021621 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:15:29 +1000 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:45:28 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit. Message-ID: <20090828151528.GT4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090828132321.e4a497bb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090828072007.GH4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090828163523.e51678be.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090828132643.GM4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> <712c0209222358d9c7d1e33f93e21c30.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> <20090828144648.GO4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090828150829.GR4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> <25afd2b84c65e7c2c8f2edde31c914f7.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25afd2b84c65e7c2c8f2edde31c914f7.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-29 00:12:26]: > Balbir Singh wrote: > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-29 > > 00:06:23]: > > > >> Balbir Singh wrote: > >> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-28 > >> > 23:40:56]: > >> > > >> >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >> >> > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> >> >> But Bob and Mike might need to set soft limits between themselves. > >> if > >> >> >> soft limit of gold is 1G and bob needs to be close to 750M and > >> mike > >> >> >> 250M, how do we do it without supporting what we have today? > >> >> >> > >> >> > Don't use hierarchy or don't use softlimit. > >> >> > (I never think fine-grain soft limit can be useful.) > >> >> > > >> >> > Anyway, I have to modify unnecessary hacks for res_counter of > >> >> softlimit. > >> >> > plz allow modification. that's bad. > >> >> > I postpone RB-tree breakage problem, plz explain it or fix it by > >> >> yourself. > >> >> > > >> >> I changed my mind....per-zone RB-tree is also broken ;) > >> >> > >> >> Why I don't like broken system is a function which a user can't > >> >> know/calculate how-it-works is of no use in mission critical systems. > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to think how-to-fix it with better algorithm. Maybe RB-tree > >> >> is not a choice. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Soft limits are not meant for mission critical work :-) Soft limits is > >> > best effort and not a guaranteed resource allocation mechanism. I've > >> > mentioned in previous emails how we recover if we find the data is > >> > stale > >> > > >> yes. but can you explain how selection will be done to users ? > >> I can't. > >> > > > > From a user point, we get what we set, but the timelines can be a > > little longer. > > > I'll drop this patch, anyway. But will modify res_counter. > We have to reduce ops under lock after we see spinlock can explode > system time. > Thanks! I'll review the other patches as well and test them sometime over the weekend. -- 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