From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D43056B00A0 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nAQ2Zd0M006175 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:39 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4425C45DE64 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5CF45DE55 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4185E78001 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A711DB803E for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:37 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: memcg: slab control In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <20091126113209.5A68.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:35:36 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Suleiman Souhlal , Ying Han , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi > Hi, > > I wanted to see what the current ideas are concerning kernel memory > accounting as it relates to the memory controller. Eventually we'll want > the ability to restrict cgroups to a hard slab limit. That'll require > accounting to map slab allocations back to user tasks so that we can > enforce a policy based on the cgroup's aggregated slab usage similiar to > how the memory controller currently does for user memory. > > Is this currently being thought about within the memcg community? We'd > like to start a discussion and get everybody's requirements and interests > on the table and then become actively involved in the development of such > a feature. I don't think memory hard isolation is bad idea. however, slab restriction is too strange. some device use slab frequently, another someone use get_free_pages() directly. only slab restriction will not make expected result from admin view. Probably, we need to implement generic memory reservation framework. it mihgt help implemnt rt-task memory reservation and userland oom manager. It is only my personal opinion... 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