Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] memory control groups

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:17:53 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:


> > The per-memcg dirty accounting work e.g. allocates a bunch of new bits
> > in pc->flags and I'd like to hash out if this leaves enough room for
> > the structure packing I described, or whether we can come up with a
> > different way of tracking state.
> 
> This is probably longer term, but I would love to get rid of the
> duplication between global LRU and per-cgroup LRU. Global LRU could be
> approximated by scanning all per-cgroup LRU lists (in mounts
> proportional to the list lengths).
> 

I can't answer why the design, which memory cgroup's meta-page has its own LRU
rather than reusing page->lru, is selected at 1st implementation because I didn't
join the birth of memcg. Does anyone remember the reason or discussion ? 

As far as I can tell, I review patches for memcg with the viewpoint as
"Whether this patch will affect global LRU or not ? and will never break the
 algorithm of page reclaim of global LRU ?"

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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>