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 SMTP id EAC206B00C1 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2N9CuqY020600 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:56 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339BC45DE51 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135EA45DE53 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6041DB8040 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB59E38004 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:55 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) In-Reply-To: <20090323082441.GL24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090323153241.6A0F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323082441.GL24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Message-Id: <20090323175127.6A15.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:12:54 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: > > 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. -- 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