From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:24:18 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC][for -mm] memory controller enhancements for reclaiming take2 [5/8] throttling simultaneous callers of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages Message-ID: <20071203092418.58631593@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <20071203183921.72005b21.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20071203183355.0061ddeb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20071203183921.72005b21.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.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: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "containers@lists.osdl.org" , Andrew Morton , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" , xemul@openvz.org List-ID: On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:39:21 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Add throttling direct reclaim. > > Trying heavy workload under memory controller, you'll see too much > iowait and system seems heavy. (This is not good.... memory controller > is usually used for isolating system workload) > And too much memory are reclaimed. > > This patch adds throttling function for direct reclaim. > Currently, num_online_cpus/(4) + 1 threads can do direct memory reclaim > under memory controller. The same problems are true of global reclaim. Now that we're discussing this RFC anyway, I wonder if we should think about moving this restriction to the global reclaim level... -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan -- 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