Re: [PATCH] remove memory.limit v.s. memsw.limit comparison.

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:34:20 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't push this patch as this is. But adding documentation about
> > "What happens when you set memory.limit == memsw.limit" will be necessary.
> > 
> I agree.
> 
I'd like to prepare some.

> > ...maybe give all jobs to user-land and keep the kernel as it is now
> > is a good choice.
> > 
> > BTW, I'd like to avoid useless swap-out in memory.limit == memsw.limit case.
> > If someone has good idea, please :(
> > 
> I think so too.
> 
> From my simple thoughts, how about changing __mem_cgroup_try_charge() like:
> 
> 1. initialize "noswap" as "bool noswap = !!(mem->res.limit == mem->memsw.limit)".
> 2. add check "if (mem->res.limit == mem->memsw.limit)" on charge failure to mem->res
>    and set "noswap" to true if needed. 
> 3. charge mem->memsw before mem->res.
> 
> There would be other ideas, but I prefer 1 among these choices.
> 
ok, thank you for advices.

Regards,
-Kame


> 
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
> 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>