[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44E98E61.2030608@sw.ru>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:43:45 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: rohitseth@...gle.com
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, hugh@...itas.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)
>>1. reclaiming user resources is not that good idea as it looks to you.
>>such solutions end up with lots of resources spent on reclaim.
>>for user memory reclaims mean consumption of expensive disk I/O bandwidth
>>which reduces overall system throughput and influences other users.
>>
>
>
> May be I'm overlooking something very obvious. Please tell me, what
> happens when a user hits a page fault and the page allocator is easily
> able to give a page from its pcp list. But container is over its limit
> of physical memory. In your patch there is no attempt by container
> support to see if some of the user pages are easily reclaimable. What
> options a user will have to make sure some room is created.
The patch set send doesn't control user memory!
This topic is about kernel memory...
>>2. kernel memory is mostly not reclaimable. can you reclaim vma structs or ipc ids?
>
>
> I'm not arguing about that at all. If people want to talk about
> reclaiming kernel pages then that should be done independent of this
> subject.
Then why do you mess user pages accounting into this thread then?
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists