From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753709AbYF3ECS@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753709AbYF3ECS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:02:18 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750797AbYF3ECG
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:02:06 -0400
Received: from E23SMTP03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.172]:33982 "EHLO
	e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750777AbYF3ECE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:02:04 -0400
Message-ID: <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
       Paul Menage <menage@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3)
References: <20080627151808.31664.36047.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20080628133615.a5fa16cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4867174B.3090005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630102054.ee214765.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <486855DF.2070100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630125737.4b14785f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080630125737.4b14785f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Hmm, that is the case where "share" works well. Why soft-limit ?
> i/o conroller doesn't support share ? (I don' know sorry.)
> 

Share is a proportional allocation of a resource. Typically that resource is
soft-limits, but not necessarily. If we re-use resource counters, my expectation
is that

A share implementation would under-neath use soft-limits.

> yes. what I want to say is you should take care of this.
> 

Yes, it will

> Anyway, I think you should revisit the whole memory reclaim and fixes small bugs?
> which doesn't meet soft-limit.
> 

I'll revisit the full thing, I am revisiting parts of it as I write the soft
limit feature.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL