From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F36B00D5 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from d23relay01.au.ibm.com (d23relay01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.243]) by e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n25FP7Fa022451 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:25:07 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay01.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n25FR4AH414020 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:27:06 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n25FQjwV011081 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:26:46 +1100 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:56:42 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3) Message-ID: <20090305152642.GA5482@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090302060519.GG11421@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090302152128.e74f51ef.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090302063649.GJ11421@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090302160602.521928a5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090302124210.GK11421@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090302174156.GM11421@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090303085914.555089b1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090303111244.GP11421@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090305180410.a44035e0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090305180410.a44035e0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Bharata B Rao , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Dhaval Giani , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-05 18:04:10]: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530 > Balbir Singh 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 > > 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: email@kvack.org