From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:42:43 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller Message-Id: <20061031014243.1153655b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <45471510.4070407@in.ibm.com> References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <4545D51A.1060808@in.ibm.com> <4546212B.4010603@openvz.org> <454638D2.7050306@in.ibm.com> <45463F70.1010303@in.ibm.com> <45470FEE.6040605@openvz.org> <45471510.4070407@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@in.ibm.com Cc: Pavel Emelianov , vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, menage@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Vaidyanathan S List-ID: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:49:12 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > The idea behind limiting the page cache is this > > 1. Lets say one container fills up the page cache. > 2. The other containers will not be able to allocate memory (even > though they are within their limits) without the overhead of having > to flush the page cache and freeing up occupied cache. The kernel > will have to pageout() the dirty pages in the page cache. There's a vast difference between clean pagecache and dirty pagecache in this context. It is terribly imprecise to use the term "pagecache". And it would be a poor implementation which failed to distinguish between clean pagecache and dirty pagecache. -- 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