Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-05 18:04:10]:

> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I wrote
> > > ==
> > >  if (victim is not over soft-limit)
> > > ==
> > > ....Maybe this discussion style is bad and I should explain my approach in patch.
> > > (I can't write code today, sorry.)
> > > 
> 
> This is an example of my direction, " do it lazy" softlimit.
> 
> Maybe this is not perfect but this addresses almost all my concern.
> I hope this will be an input for you.
> I didn't divide patch into small pieces intentionally to show a big picture.
> Thanks,
> -Kame
> ==
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> An example patch. Don't trust me, this patch may have bugs.
>

Well this is not do it lazy, all memcg's are scanned tree is built everytime
kswapd invokes soft limit reclaim. With 100 cgroups and 5 nodes, we'll
end up scanning cgroups 500 times. There is no ordering of selected
victims, so the largest victim might still be running unaffected.

-- 
	Balbir

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>