Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > 
> > Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature
> > for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the
> > group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits
> > below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those
> > approaches in favour of this one.
> > 
> > Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where
> > the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory
> > contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation
> > provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not
> > for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups
> > that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that
> > exceeds this limit by the maximum amount.
> > 
> > This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion
> > 
> > TODOs
> > 
> > 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit
> >    implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add
> >    a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in
> >    a manner similar to the group scheduler
> 
> Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory
> proportionally?
> 
I don't like to add "share" as the kernel interface of memcg.
We used "bytes" to do (hard) limit. Please just use "bytes".

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/