From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] another swap controller for cgroup In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:10:14 +0900" <47E79A26.3070401@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <47E79A26.3070401@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20080325031039.549831E9292@siro.lan> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:10:39 +0900 (JST) From: yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp Cc: hugh@veritas.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, minoura@valinux.co.jp, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: hi, > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > Hi, Yamamoto-san. > > > > I'm reviewing and testing your patch now. > > > > In building kernel infinitely(in a cgroup of > memory.limit=64M and swap.limit=128M, with swappiness=100), > almost all of the swap (1GB) is consumed as swap cache > after a day or so. > As a result, processes are occasionally OOM-killed even when > the swap.usage of the group doesn't exceed the limit. > > I don't know why the swap cache uses up swap space. > I will test whether a similar issue happens without your patch. > Do you have any thoughts? my patch tends to yield more swap cache because it makes try_to_unmap fail and shrink_page_list leaves swap cache in that case. i'm not sure how it causes 1GB swap cache, tho. YAMAMOTO Takashi > > BTW, I think that it would be better, in the sence of > isolating memory resource, if there is a framework > to limit the usage of swap cache. > > > Thanks, > Daisuke Nishimura. -- 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