From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAJ8Zwci028961 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:35:58 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.6) with ESMTP id lAJ8YKKb107946 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:34:20 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lAJ8YJv0011628 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:34:19 -0500 Message-ID: <47414A8F.8020807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:04:23 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memory controller per zone patches take 2 [9/10] per-zone-lru for memory cgroup References: <20071116191107.46dd523a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20071116192642.8c7f07c9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <473F2A1A.8000703@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119104826.e4ba02ca.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47412B5B.80409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071119153549.d6f6f1de.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20071119153549.d6f6f1de.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "containers@lists.osdl.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:51:15 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: >>> = >>> /cgroup/group_A/group_A_1 >>> . /group_A_2 >>> /group_A_3 >>> (LRU(s) will be used for maintaining parent/child groups.) >>> >> The LRU's will be shared, my vision is >> >> LRU >> ^ ^ >> | | >> Mem-----+ +----Mem >> >> >> That two or more mem_cgroup's can refer to the same LRU list and have >> their own resource counters. This setup will be used in the case >> of a hierarchy, so that a child can share memory with its parent >> and have it's own limit. >> >> The mem_cgroup will basically then only contain a reference >> to the LRU list. >> > Hmm, interesting. > > Then, > group_A_1's usage + group_A_2's usage + group_A_3's usgae < group_A's limit. > group_A_1, group_A_2, group_A_3 has its own limit. Yes that is correct > In plan. > > I wonder if we want rich control functions, we need "share" or "priority" among > childs. (but maybe this will be complicated one.) > That would nice and the end goal of providing this feature. We also need to provide soft-limits (more complex) and guarantees (with the kernel memory controller coming in - nice to have, but not necessary for now) > Thank you for explanation. > > Regards, > -Kame > Thanks for helping out the memory controller. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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