From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AA466B004D for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n771RRts029145 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:27:27 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E17145DE50 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:27:27 +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 2762745DE4C for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:27:27 +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 0D7251DB803E for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:27:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53551DB8038 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:27:26 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:25:28 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? Message-Id: <20090807102528.e4af0c21.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4A7AACF1.9040400@redhat.com> References: <20090805024058.GA8886@localhost> <4A79C70C.6010200@redhat.com> <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B651C1FE@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> <4A79D88E.2040005@redhat.com> <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B651C21C@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> <4A7AA0CF.2020700@redhat.com> <20090806092516.GA18425@localhost> <4A7AA3FF.9070808@redhat.com> <20090806093507.GA24669@localhost> <4A7AA999.8050309@redhat.com> <20090806095905.GA30410@localhost> <4A7AACF1.9040400@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Avi Kivity Cc: Wu Fengguang , "Dike, Jeffrey G" , Rik van Riel , "Yu, Wilfred" , "Kleen, Andi" , Andrea Arcangeli , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:14:09 +0300 Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/06/2009 12:59 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > >> Do we know for a fact that only stack pages suffer, or is it what has > >> been noticed? > >> > > > > It shall be the first case: "These pages are nearly all stack pages.", > > Jeff said. > > > > Ok. I can't explain it. There's no special treatment for guest stack > pages. The accessed bit should be maintained for them exactly like all > other pages. > > Are they kernel-mode stack pages, or user-mode stack pages (the > difference being that kernel mode stack pages are accessed through large > ptes, whereas user mode stack pages are accessed through normal ptes). > Hmm, finally, memcg's problem ? just as an experiment, how following works ? - memory.limit_in_bytes = 128MB - memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 160MB By this, if mamory+swap usage hits 160MB, no swap more. But plz take care of OOM. 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