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 1B2836B004D for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n7SF6Oxx006583 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:24 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E6445DE4F for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C2B45DE4E for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5859B1DB803F for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C491DB803A for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:24 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090828144648.GO4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090828132015.10a42e40.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <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> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:06:23 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit. From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: 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. Thanks, -Kame -- 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