From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <451173B5.1000805@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:00:37 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4510D3F4.1040009@yahoo.com.au> <1158751720.8970.67.camel@twins> <4511626B.9000106@yahoo.com.au> <1158767787.3278.103.camel@taijtu> In-Reply-To: <1158767787.3278.103.camel@taijtu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: rohitseth@google.com, CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management , Christoph Lameter List-ID: (this time to the lists as well) Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I'd much rather containterize the whole reclaim code, which should not > be too hard since he already adds a container pointer to struct page. Yes, and I tend to agree with you. I probably wasn't clear, but I was mainly talking about just the memory resource tracking part of this patchset. I am less willing to make a judgement about reclaim, because I don't know very much about the workloads or the guarantees they attempt to provide. > Esp. when we get some of my page reclaim abstractions merged, moving the > reclaim from struct zone to a container is not a lot of work. (this is > basically what one of the ckrm mm policies did too) I do agree that it would be nicer to not have a completely different scheme for doing their own page reclaim, but rather use the existing code (*provided* that it is designed in the same, minimally intrusive manner as the page tracking). I can understand how it is attractive to create a new subsystem to solve a particular problem, but once it is in the kernel it has to be maintained regardless, so if it can be done in a way that shares more of the current infrastructure (nicely) then that would be a better solution. I like that they're investigating the use of memory nodes for this. It seems like the logical starting place. > I still have to reread what Rohit does for file backed pages, that gave > my head a spin. > I've been thinking a bit on that problem, and it would be possible to > share all address_space pages equally between attached containers, this > would lose some accuracy, since one container could read 10% of the file > and another 90%, but I don't think that is a common scenario. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. I don't think really complex schemes are needed... but again I might need more knowledge of their workloads and problems. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- 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: email@kvack.org