From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB0F6B00C5 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2N9NWL5014969 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:53:32 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2N9JlXk4444398 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:49:48 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2N9NFdv024454 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:23:15 +1100 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:53:02 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-ID: <20090323092302.GO24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090323153241.6A0F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323082441.GL24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090323175127.6A15.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323175127.6A15.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: * KOSAKI Motohiro [2009-03-23 18:12:54]: > > > Kamezawa-san, This implementation is suck. but I think softlimit concept > > > itself isn't suck. > > > > Just because of the reclaim factor? Feel free to improve it > > iteratively. Like I said to Kamezawa, don't over optimize in the first > > iteration. Pre-mature optimization is the root of all evil. > > Agreed. > Then, I nacked premature optimization code everytime. > > > > > So, I would suggested discuss this feature based on your > > > "memcg softlimit (Another one) v4" patch. I exept I can ack it after few spin. > > > > Kame's implementation sucked quite badly, please see my posted test > > results. Basic, bare minimum functionality did not work. > > Yes. I see. > but I think it can be fixed. the basic design of the patch is sane IMHO. > I have the following major objections to design 1. The use of lists as a data-structure, it will not scale well. 2. Using zone watermarks to implement global soft limits -- 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