Re: memcg: slab control

[Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>]

Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> [2009-12-02 13:14:15]:
> 
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> [2009-12-01 13:40:30]:
>>>
>>>>> Just to understand the context better, is this really a problem. This
>>>>> can occur when we do really run out of memory. The idea of using
>>>>> slabcg + memcg together is good, except for our accounting process. I
>>>>> can repost percpu counter patches that adds fuzziness along with other
>>>>> tricks that Kame has to do batch accounting, that we will need to
>>>>> make sure we are able to do with slab allocations as well.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand you concern. Can you elaborate, please?
>>>>
>>> The concern was mostly accounting when memcg + slabcg are integrated
>>> into the same framework. res_counters will need new scalability
>>> primitives.
>>>
>> I see. I think the best we can do here is start with a separate controller.
>>
> 
> I would think so as well, but setting up independent limits might be a
> challenge, how does the user really estimate the amount of kernel
> memory needed? This is the same problem that David posted sometime
> back. 

I agree with you, but note, that the memcg consists of several part and
the question "where to account bytes to" is quite independent from "what
allocations to account" and "where to get the memcg context from on kfree" ;)

--
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>