From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753354AbXDMN4a (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:56:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754002AbXDMN4a (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:56:30 -0400 Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:44718 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753354AbXDMN43 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:56:29 -0400 Message-ID: <461F8C15.3020002@bull.net> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:56:37 +0200 From: Jean-Pierre Dion User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Emelianov Cc: Andrew Morton , Paul Menage , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Balbir Singh , devel@openvz.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Chandra Seetharaman , Cedric Le Goater , "Eric W. Biederman" , Rohit Seth Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add container pointer on struct page References: <461A3010.90403@sw.ru> <461A3483.10402@sw.ru> In-Reply-To: <461A3483.10402@sw.ru> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ECN002/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 13/04/2007 15:58:57, Serialize by Router on ECN002/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 13/04/2007 15:58:59, Serialize complete at 13/04/2007 15:58:59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Pavel, I have been implied in the work for the memory controller of res groups a few months ago. I see that you propose to modify the struct page to point to rss container struct. This has made some debate because of the struct page size increase, but this allows a quicker scan to reclaim pages (I mean having per-container lists of active/inactive pages). We (here at Bull and others) proposed this implementation for res groups and I am interested in knowing if this has a chance of being accepted today (hope so). I know this uses memory for internal management and increases a lot the memory size used for a large memory configuration, but in that case we have lot of memory, so where is the issue ? We tested this on a 28 GB server and it worked. Also we can use larger page size to reduce the overhead, and I believe this makes sense on large servers with big memory. So we balance between using more memory internally and so getting faster access to pages for reclaim, or do nothing. ;-) jean-pierre