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 l1JB0srs098880 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:00:54 +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 l1JAmZtd163010 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:48:35 +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 l1JAj5VT025509 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:45:05 +1100 Message-ID: <45D97FAD.9070009@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:15:01 +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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Magnus Damm Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, xemul@sw.ru, linux-mm@kvack.org, menage@google.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@openvz.org List-ID: Magnus Damm wrote: > On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:19 +0530 Balbir Singh >> wrote: >> >> > This patch applies on top of Paul Menage's container patches (V7) >> posted at >> > >> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/88 >> > >> > It implements a controller within the containers framework for limiting >> > memory usage (RSS usage). > >> The key part of this patchset is the reclaim algorithm: >> >> 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. > > Nice with a simple memory controller. The downside seems to be that it > doesn't scale very well when it comes to reclaim, but maybe that just > comes with being simple. Step by step, and maybe this is a good first > step? > Thanks, I totally agree. > Ideally I'd like to see unmapped pages handled on a per-container LRU > with a fallback to the system-wide LRUs. Shared/mapped pages could be > handled using PTE ageing/unmapping instead of page ageing, but that > may consume too much resources to be practical. > > / magnus Keeping unmapped pages per container sounds interesting. I am not quite sure what PTE ageing, will it look it up. -- 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