From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9600C6B0088 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id nAQADKH2028348 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:21 GMT Received: from pzk5 (pzk5.prod.google.com [10.243.19.133]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id nAQADIoh026094 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:13:18 -0800 Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so413828pzk.18 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:13:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091126085031.GG2970@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20091126101414.829936d8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091126085031.GG2970@balbir.in.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:13:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: memcg: slab control From: Suleiman Souhlal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelyanov , Ying Han , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 11/26/09, Balbir Singh wrote: > I think it is easier to write a slab controller IMHO. One potential problem I can think of with writing a slab controller would be that the user would have to estimate what fraction of the amount of memory slab should be allowed to use, which might not be ideal. If you wanted to limit a cgroup to a total of 1GB of memory, you might not care if the job wants to use 0.9 GB of user memory and 0.1GB of slab or if it wants to use 0.9GB of slab and 0.1GB of user memory.. Because of this, it might be more practical to integrate the slab accounting in memcg. -- Suleiman -- 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