From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47CFB193.3040501@openvz.org> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:55:47 +0300 From: Pavel Emelyanov MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Supporting overcommit with the memory controller References: <6599ad830803051617w7835d9b2l69bbc1a0423eac41@mail.gmail.com> <20080306100158.a521af1b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830803051854x5ee204bej7212d9c1e444e4d0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830803051854x5ee204bej7212d9c1e444e4d0@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Menage , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Balbir Singh , Hugh Dickins , Linux Containers , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: >> Can Balbir's soft-limit patches help ? [snip] > > Yes, that could be a useful part of the solution - I suspect we'd need > to have kswapd do the soft-limit push back as well as in > try_to_free_pages(), to avoid the high-priority jobs getting stuck in > the reclaim code. It would also be nice if we had: BTW, one of the way OpenVZ users determine how much memory they need for containers is the following: they set the limits to maximal values and then check the "maxheld" (i.e. the maximal level of consumption over the time) value. Currently, we don't have such in res_counters and I'm going to implement this. Objections? -- 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