From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:08:06 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFD][PATCH] memcg: Move Usage at Task Move Message-Id: <20080612140806.dc161c77.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830806110148v65df67f8ge0ccdd56c21c89e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080606105235.3c94daaf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830806110017t5ebeda78id1914d179a018422@mail.gmail.com> <20080611164544.94047336.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830806110104n99cdc7h80063e91d16bf0a5@mail.gmail.com> <20080611172714.018aa68c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830806110148v65df67f8ge0ccdd56c21c89e0@mail.gmail.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: Paul Menage Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "containers@lists.osdl.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "xemul@openvz.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" List-ID: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:48:20 -0700 "Paul Menage" wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:27 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: > > Sorry. try another sentense.. > > > > I think cgroup itself is designed to be able to be used without middleware. > > True, but it shouldn't be hostile to middleware, since I think that > automated use will be much more common. (And certainly if you count > the number of servers :-) ) > > > IOW, whether using middleware or not is the matter of users not of developpers. > > There will be a system that system admin controlles all and move tasks by hand. > > ex)...personal notebooks etc.. > > > > You think so? I think that at the very least users will be using tools > based around config scripts, rule engines and libcgroup, if not a > persistent daemon. > I believe some users will never use middlewares because of their special usage of linux. > >> If the common mode for middleware starting a new cgroup is fork() / > >> move / exec() then after the fork(), the child will be sharing pages > >> with the main daemon process. So the move will pull all the daemon's > >> memory into the new cgroup > >> > > My patch (this patch) just moves Private Anon page to new cgroup. (of mapcount=1) > > OK, well that makes it more reasonable regarding the above problem. > But I can still see problems if, say, a single thread moves into a new > cgroup, you move the entire memory. Perhaps you should only do so if > the mm->owner changes task? > Thank you for pointing out. I'll add mm->owner check. BTW, should we have a cgroup for SYSVIPC resource controller and devide it from memory resource controller ? I think that per-task on-demand usage accounting is not suitable for shmem (and hugepage). per-creater (caller of shmget()) accounting seems to be better for me. Just a question: What happens when a thread (not thread-group-leader) changes its ns by ns-cgroup ? not-allowed ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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