From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1JAtJiY171718 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:55:19 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.237]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1JAh0on143376 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:43:00 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1JAdTN8018807 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:39:30 +1100 Message-ID: <45D97E5E.7060603@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:09:26 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@in.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][0/4] Memory controller (RSS Control) References: <20070219065019.3626.33947.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6599ad830702190106m3f391de4x170326fef2e4872@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830702190106m3f391de4x170326fef2e4872@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Menage Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, xemul@sw.ru, linux-mm@kvack.org, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@openvz.org List-ID: Paul Menage wrote: > On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> Alas, I fear this might have quite bad worst-case behaviour. One small >> container which is under constant memory pressure will churn the >> system-wide LRUs like mad, and will consume rather a lot of system time. >> So it's a point at which container A can deleteriously affect things >> which >> are running in other containers, which is exactly what we're supposed to >> not do. > > I think it's OK for a container to consume lots of system time during > reclaim, as long as we can account that time to the container involved > (i.e. if it's done during direct reclaim rather than by something like > kswapd). > > Churning the LRU could well be bad though, I agree. > I completely agree with you on reclaim consuming time. Churning the LRU can be avoided by the means I mentioned before 1. Add a container pointer (per page struct), it is also useful for the page cache controller 2. Check if the page belongs to a particular container before the list_del(&page->lru), so that those pages can be skipped. 3. Use a double LRU list by overloading the lru list_head of struct page. > Paul > -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh -- 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