Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy

[kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com]

----- Original Message -----
way, breaks limit semantics.
>>>
>> Not easy to use in my point of view. Can we use 'share' in proper way 
>> on no-swap machine ?
>> 
>
>Not sure I understand your question. Share represents the share of available
>resources.
>

If no swap, you cannot reclaim anonymous pages and shared memory.
Then, the kernel has to abandon any kinds of auto-balancing somewhere.
(just an example. Things will be more complicated when we consinder
 mlocked pages and swap-resource-controller.)


>> yield() after callback() means that res_counter's state will be
>> far different from the state after callback.
>> So, we have to yield before call back and check res_coutner sooner.
>> 
>
>But does yield() get us any guarantees of seeing the state change?
>
Hmm, myabe my explanation is bad.

in following sequence
   1.callback()
   2.yield()
   3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 1->3 is big.

in following
   1.yield()
   2.callback()
   3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 2->3 is small.

There is an option to implement "changing limit grarually"

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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>