Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-10 09:43:44]:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:32:29 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > 1. you use res_counter_read_positive() in force_empty. It seems force_empty can
> >    go into infinite loop. plz check. (especially when some pages are freed or swapped-in
> >    in other cpu while force_empry runs.)
> > 
> > 2. In near future, we'll see 256 or 1024 cpus on a system, anyway.
> >    Assume 1024cpu system, 64k*1024=64M is a tolerance.
> >    Can't we calculate max-tolerane as following ?
> >   
> >    tolerance = min(64k * num_online_cpus(), limit_in_bytes/100);
> >    tolerance /= num_online_cpus();
> >    per_cpu_tolerance = min(16k, tolelance);
> > 
> >    I think automatic runtine adjusting of tolerance will be finally necessary,
> >    but above will not be very bad because we can guarantee 1% tolerance.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, one more.
> 
> 3. As I requested when you pushed softlimit changes to mmotom, plz consider
>    to implement a way to check-and-notify gadget to res_counter.
>    See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=124753058921677&w=2
>

Yes, I will do that, but only after the scaling, since this is more
important at the moment. 

-- 
	Balbir

--
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>