From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B574F6B004D for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:43:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n3S7iVdg017436 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:32 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A379145DE54 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CBA45DE52 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F67BE08005 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C3AE08009 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:30 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: Swappiness vs. mmap() and interactive response In-Reply-To: <20090428072619.GA29747@eskimo.com> References: <20090428154835.EBC9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090428072619.GA29747@eskimo.com> Message-Id: <20090428164050.EBD2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:29 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Elladan Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , Rik van Riel List-ID: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 03:52:29PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi > > > > > 3. cache limitation of memcgroup solve this problem? > > > > > > I was unable to get this to work -- do you have some documentation handy? > > > > Do you have kernel source tarball? > > Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt explain usage kindly. > > Thank you. My documentation was out of date. > > I created a cgroup with limited memory and placed a copy command in it, and the > latency problem seems to essentially go away. However, I'm also a bit > suspicious that my test might have become invalid, since my IO performance > seems to have dropped somewhat too. > > So, am I right in concluding that this more or less implicates bad page > replacement as the culprit? After I dropped vm caches and let my working set > re-form, the memory cgroup seems to be effective at keeping a large pool of > memory free from file pressure. Hmm.. it seems your result mean bad page replacement occur. but actually I hevn't seen such result on my environment. Hmm, I think I need to make reproduce environmet to your trouble. Thanks. -- 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