[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F3C700.3060106@sw.ru>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:08:16 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To: herbert@...hfloor.at
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
>> Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru> wrote:
>>
>>> +struct rss_container {
>>> + struct res_counter res;
>>> + struct list_head page_list;
>>> + struct container_subsys_state css;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct page_container {
>>> + struct page *page;
>>> + struct rss_container *cnt;
>>> + struct list_head list;
>>> +};
>> ah. This looks good. I'll find a hunk of time to go through this work
>> and through Paul's patches. It'd be good to get both patchsets lined
>> up in -mm within a couple of weeks. But..
>
> doesn't look so good for me, mainly becaus of the
> additional per page data and per page processing
>
> on 4GB memory, with 100 guests, 50% shared for each
> guest, this basically means ~1mio pages, 500k shared
> and 1500k x sizeof(page_container) entries, which
> roughly boils down to ~25MB of wasted memory ...
>
> increase the amount of shared pages and it starts
> getting worse, but maybe I'm missing something here
You are. Each page has only one page_container associated
with it despite the number of containers it is shared
between.
>> We need to decide whether we want to do per-container memory
>> limitation via these data structures, or whether we do it via a
>> physical scan of some software zone, possibly based on Mel's patches.
>
> why not do simple page accounting (as done currently
> in Linux) and use that for the limits, without
> keeping the reference from container to page?
As I've already answered in my previous letter simple
limiting w/o per-container reclamation and per-container
oom killer isn't a good memory management. It doesn't allow
to handle resource shortage gracefully.
This patchset provides more grace way to handle this, but
full memory management includes accounting of VMA-length
as well (returning ENOMEM from system call) but we've decided
to start with RSS.
> best,
> Herbert
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Containers mailing list
>> Containers@...ts.osdl.org
>> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> -
> 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/
>
-
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