From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:04:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110401140446.GF16661@tiehlicka.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik8g=VZmsn_ZybVVVVco6oNYmakGA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu 31-03-11 11:10:00, Ying Han wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Wed 30-03-11 10:59:21, Ying Han wrote:
[...]
> > That was my concern so I made that isolation rather opt-in without
> > modifying the current reclaim logic too much (there are, of course,
> > parts that can be improved).
>
> So far we are discussing the memory limit only for user pages. Later
> we definitely need a kernel memory slab accounting and also for
> reclaim. If we put them together, do you still have the concern? Sorry
> guess I am just trying to understand the concern w/ example.
If we account the kernel memory then it should be less problematic, I
guess.
[...]
> > Lots of groups is really an issue because we can end up in a situation
> > when everybody is under the limit while there is not much memory left
> > for the kernel. Maybe sum(soft_limit) < kernel_treshold condition would
> > solve this.
> most of the kernel memory are allocated on behalf of processes in
> cgroup. One way of doing that (after having kernel memory accounting)
> is to count in kernel memory into usage_in_bytes. So we have the
> following:
>
> 1) limit_in_bytes: cap of memory allocation (user + kernel) for cgroup-A
> 2) soft_limit_in_bytes: guarantee of memory allocation (user +
> kernel) for cgroup-A
> 3) usage_in_bytes: user pages + kernel pages (allocated on behalf of the memcg)
>
> The above need kernel memory accounting and targeting reclaim. Then we
> have sum(soft_limit) < machine capacity. Hope we can talk a bit in the
> LSF on this too.
Sure. I am looking forward.
> >> The later one breaks the isolation.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand. Why would elimination of the global lru
> > scanning break isolation? Or am I misreading you?
>
> Sorry, i meant the other way around. So we agree on this .
Makes more sense now ;)
Thanks
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-01 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-28 9:39 Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:39 ` [RFC 1/3] Add mem_cgroup->isolated and configuration knob Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:39 ` [RFC 2/3] Implement isolated LRU cgroups Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:40 ` [RFC 3/3] Do not shrink isolated groups from the global reclaim Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 11:03 ` [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-28 11:44 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 0:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 7:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 8:59 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 9:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 11:18 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 13:15 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-03-29 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 14:02 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-03-29 14:08 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-30 5:32 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 15:53 ` Balbir Singh
2011-03-30 8:18 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-30 17:59 ` Ying Han
2011-03-31 9:53 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-31 18:10 ` Ying Han
2011-04-01 14:04 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2011-03-31 10:01 ` Balbir Singh
2011-03-28 18:01 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 0:12 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 0:37 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 0:47 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 2:29 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 3:02 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 2:46 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 2:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 4:03 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 7:53 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110401140446.GF16661@tiehlicka.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox