Re: memcg: slab control

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

* Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> [2009-12-02 13:14:15]:

> Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> [2009-12-01 13:40:30]:
> > 
> >>> Just to understand the context better, is this really a problem. This
> >>> can occur when we do really run out of memory. The idea of using
> >>> slabcg + memcg together is good, except for our accounting process. I
> >>> can repost percpu counter patches that adds fuzziness along with other
> >>> tricks that Kame has to do batch accounting, that we will need to
> >>> make sure we are able to do with slab allocations as well.
> >>>
> >> I'm not sure I understand you concern. Can you elaborate, please?
> >>
> > 
> > The concern was mostly accounting when memcg + slabcg are integrated
> > into the same framework. res_counters will need new scalability
> > primitives.
> > 
> 
> I see. I think the best we can do here is start with a separate controller.
>

I would think so as well, but setting up independent limits might be a
challenge, how does the user really estimate the amount of kernel
memory needed? This is the same problem that David posted sometime
back. 

-- 
	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>