From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k130xUaJ021954 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:59:30 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k130vWXd238088 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:57:32 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k130xU7E003916 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:59:30 -0700 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/8] Pzone based CKRM memory resource controller From: chandra seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20060203005122.CD94174039@sv1.valinux.co.jp> References: <20060119080408.24736.13148.sendpatchset@debian> <20060131023000.7915.71955.sendpatchset@debian> <1138762698.3938.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060201053958.CE35B74035@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <1138843560.3939.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060202035402.A29667403A@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <1138927057.3914.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060203005122.CD94174039@sv1.valinux.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:01:13 -0800 Message-Id: <1138928473.3914.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KUROSAWA Takahiro Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:51 +0900, KUROSAWA Takahiro wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:37:37 -0800 > chandra seetharaman wrote: > > > > > > > - what is the plan to support "limit" ? > > > > > > > > > > To be honest, I don't have any specific idea to support "limit" currently. > > > > > Probably the userspace daemon that enlarge "guarantee" to the specified > > > > > "limit" might support the "limit", because "guarantee" in the pzone based > > > > > memory resource controller also works as "limit". > > > > > > > > I am not able to visualize how this will work. > > > > > > > > In simple terms, sum of guarantees should _not_ exceed the amount of > > > > available memory but, sum of limits _can_ exceed the amount of available > > > > memory. As far as i understand your implementation, guarantee is > > > > translated to present_pages of the pseudo zone (and is subtracted from > > > > paren't present_pages). How can one set limit to be same as guarantee ? > > > > > > The number of pages in the pseudo zones can also be considered as limit > > > because tasks in a class can't allocate beyond the number of the pages > > > that are allocated to the pseudo zones. > > > > Yes. but, it is true only when limit and guarantee are the same. > > > > Consider the following scenario: > > A system with 1024MB of memory. > > > > I want to create 6 classes: > > - 4 of which has guarantee of 128MB and limit of 512MB > > - 2 of which has guarantee of 256MB and limit of 768MB > > > > We cannot do this with this memrc. Can you explain how a userspace > > program can help me do this. > > Our memrc with a userspace program doesn't help this case. > If you'd like to setup classes like this, you can select the memory > resource controller in current CKRM. That is how we intended guarantee and limit to work. What was your understanding, and what one can do through the userspace support ? > -- 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