Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-05 18:04:10]:

> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:42:44 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > I wrote
> > > ==
> > >  if (victim is not over soft-limit)
> > > ==
> > > ....Maybe this discussion style is bad and I should explain my approach in patch.
> > > (I can't write code today, sorry.)
> > > 
> 
> This is an example of my direction, " do it lazy" softlimit.
> 
> Maybe this is not perfect but this addresses almost all my concern.
> I hope this will be an input for you.
> I didn't divide patch into small pieces intentionally to show a big picture.
> Thanks,
> -Kame
> ==
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> An example patch. Don't trust me, this patch may have bugs.
>

Well this is not do it lazy, all memcg's are scanned tree is built everytime
kswapd invokes soft limit reclaim. With 100 cgroups and 5 nodes, we'll
end up scanning cgroups 500 times. There is no ordering of selected
victims, so the largest victim might still be running unaffected.

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/