From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com [9.117.200.22]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18236 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:46:58 -0400 From: frankeh@us.ibm.com Received: from D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com (d51mta03.pok.ibm.com [9.117.200.31]) by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.9) with SMTP id LAA219374 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:48:49 -0400 Message-ID: <85256906.0056DB76.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:49:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] RSS guarantees and limits Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: I assume that in the scenario, where there are limited number of processes, your approach will work just fine. In a server scenario where you might have lots of processes (with limited resource requirements) this might have different effects This inevidably will happen when we move Linux to NUMA or large scale SMP systems and we apply images like that to webhosting. Do you think that the resulting RSS guarantees (function of ) will be sufficient ? Or is your assumption, that for this kind of server apps with lots of running processes, you better don't overextent your memory and start paging (acceptable assumption).. -- Hubertus Rik van Riel on 06/22/2000 12:01:18 PM To: Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC] RSS guarantees and limits On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 frankeh@us.ibm.com wrote: > Seems like a good idea, for ensuring some decent response time. > This seems similar to what WinNT is doing. There's a big difference here. I plan on making the RSS limit system such that most applications should be somewhere between their limit and their guarantee when the system is under "normal" levels of memory pressure. That is, I want to keep global page replacement the primary page replacement strategy and only use the RSS guarantees and limits to guide global page replacement and limit the system from impact by memory hogs. > Do you envision that the "RSS guarantees" decay over time. I am > concerned that some daemons hanging out there and which might be > executed very rarely (e.g. inetd) might hug to much memory > (cummulatively speaking). I think NT at some point pages the > entire working set for such apps. This is what I want to avoid. Of course if a task is really sleeping it should of course be completely removed from memory, but a _periodic_ task like top or atd may as well be protected a bit if memory pressure is low enough. I know I will have to adjust my rough draft quite a bit to achieve the wanted effects... regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.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.eu.org/Linux-MM/