From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62CB26B003D for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:06:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2V56ZVQ001465 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:35 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409FB45DD75 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE0C45DD72 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054D7E08003 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6961DB8019 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:31 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:05:02 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1 Message-Id: <20090331140502.813993cc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090331050055.GF16497@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090327135933.789729cb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090328181100.GB26686@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090328182747.GA8339@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090331085538.2aaa5e2b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090331050055.GF16497@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:30:55 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-31 08:55:38]: > > > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:57:47 +0530 > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > * Balbir Singh [2009-03-28 23:41:00]: > > > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-27 13:59:33]: > > > > > > > > > ==brief test result== > > > > > On 2CPU/1.6GB bytes machine. create group A and B > > > > > A. soft limit=300M > > > > > B. no soft limit > > > > > > > > > > Run a malloc() program on B and allcoate 1G of memory. The program just > > > > > sleeps after allocating memory and no memory refernce after it. > > > > > Run make -j 6 and compile the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > When vm.swappiness = 60 => 60MB of memory are swapped out from B. > > > > > When vm.swappiness = 10 => 1MB of memory are swapped out from B > > > > > > > > > > If no soft limit, 350MB of swap out will happen from B.(swapiness=60) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I ran the same tests, booted the machine with mem=1700M and maxcpus=2 > > > > > > > > Here is what I see with > > > > > > I meant to say, Here is what I see with my patches (v7) > > > > > Hmm, I saw 250MB of swap out ;) As I reported before. > > Swapout for A? For A it is expected, but for B it is not. How many > nodes do you have on your machine? Any fake numa nodes? > Of course, from B. Nothing special boot options. My test was on VMware 2cpus/1.6GB memory. I wonder why swapout can be 0 on your test. Do you add some extra hooks to kswapd ? 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