From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 546236B0044 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:38:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n080c3vX009690 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363AB45DE54 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0211445DE53 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E5D1DB8066 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475B61DB8060 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:02 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:37:00 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches Message-Id: <20090108093700.2ad10d85.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090107184110.18062.41459.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dhaval Giani Cc: Balbir Singh , Andrew Morton , Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov List-ID: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530 Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature > > for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the > > group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits > > below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those > > approaches in favour of this one. > > > > Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where > > the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory > > contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation > > provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not > > for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups > > that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that > > exceeds this limit by the maximum amount. > > > > This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion > > > > TODOs > > > > 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit > > implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add > > a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in > > a manner similar to the group scheduler > > Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory > proportionally? > I don't like to add "share" as the kernel interface of memcg. We used "bytes" to do (hard) limit. Please just use "bytes". 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