linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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