[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156209812.11127.20.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:23:32 -0700
From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
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)
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:43 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>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...
>
And that is why I asked the question in the very first mail (if this
support is going to come later).
-rohit
-
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