Re: [ckrm-tech] [Patch 5/6] CKRM: Add config support for mem controller

[Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>]

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:43:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:26 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:26:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > There appears to still be some serious issues in the patch with respect
> > > to per-zone accounting.  There is only accounting in each ckrm_mem_res
> > > for each *kind* of zone, not each zone.
> > 
> > In the absense of NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM, isn't 'kind of zone' and 'zone'
> > the same ? Correct me if this assumption is wrong.
> 
> Yes, that is correct.  Do you not expect your code to work with NUMA or
> DISCONTIGMEM?

not yet...
> 
> > > Could you explain what advantages keeping a per-zone-type count has over
> > > actually doing one count for each zone?  Also, why bother tracking it
> > > per-zone-type anyway?  Would a single count work the same way
> > 
> > fits the NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM issue discussed above.
> 
> I don't think it fits it very well, it kinda just glosses over it.  A
> great fit would be something that tracked how much each class was using
> in each zone, not each kind of zone.  Perhaps a controller would like to
> keep an individual class from using too much memory in any particular
> NUMA node.  The current memory controller design would keep that from
> happening.

This is one of "things to consider" in our "numa support".
> 
> -- Dave
> 

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>