From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2DC6B0088 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7A5Mmfg007456 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:52:48 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7A5MkaK475338 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:52:48 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7A5Mkkw024475 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:22:46 +1000 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:52:43 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3) Message-ID: <20090810052243.GB5257@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090807221238.GJ9686@balbir.in.ibm.com> <39eafe409b85053081e9c6826005bb06.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> <20090808060531.GL9686@balbir.in.ibm.com> <99f2a13990d68c34c76c33581949aefd.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> <20090809121530.GA5833@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090810093229.10db7185.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090810094344.77a8ef55.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090810094344.77a8ef55.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , andi.kleen@intel.com, Prarit Bhargava , KOSAKI Motohiro , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "menage@google.com" , Pavel Emelianov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-10 09:43:44]: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:32:29 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 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: email@kvack.org