From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1JAe0rf162896 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:40:00 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.243]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1JARfsB055646 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:27:41 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1JAOBsG025908 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:24:11 +1100 Message-ID: <45D97AC7.2000903@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:54:07 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@in.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH][0/4] Memory controller (RSS Control) References: <20070219065019.3626.33947.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20070219005441.7fa0eccc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6599ad830702190106m3f391de4x170326fef2e4872@mail.gmail.com> <45D972CC.2010702@sw.ru> In-Reply-To: <45D972CC.2010702@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Paul Menage , Andrew Morton , vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, xemul@sw.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, devel@openvz.org List-ID: Kirill Korotaev wrote: >> On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>> Alas, I fear this might have quite bad worst-case behaviour. One small >>> container which is under constant memory pressure will churn the >>> system-wide LRUs like mad, and will consume rather a lot of system time. >>> So it's a point at which container A can deleteriously affect things which >>> are running in other containers, which is exactly what we're supposed to >>> not do. >> >> I think it's OK for a container to consume lots of system time during >> reclaim, as long as we can account that time to the container involved >> (i.e. if it's done during direct reclaim rather than by something like >> kswapd). > hmm, is it ok to scan 100Gb of RAM for 10MB RAM container? > in UBC patch set we used page beancounters to track containter pages. > This allows to make efficient scan contoler and reclamation. > > Thanks, > Kirill Hi, Kirill, Yes, that's a problem, but I think it's a problem that can be solved in steps. First step, add reclaim. Second step, optimize reclaim. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh -- 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