Message-ID: <20070313145938.GG8755@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date:	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:59:38 +0100
From:	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	hansendc@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:48:34AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:19:53 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru> wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >>>> - shared mappings of 'shared' files (binaries 
> > >>>>   and libraries) to allow for reduced memory
> > >>>>   footprint when N identical guests are running
> > >>>
> > >>>So, it sounds like this can be phrased as a requirement like:
> > >>>
> > >>>	"Guests must be able to share pages."
> > >>>
> > >>>Can you give us an idea why this is so? 
> > >>
> > >>sure, one reason for this is that guests tend to
> > >>be similar (or almost identical) which results
> > >>in quite a lot of 'shared' libraries and executables
> > >>which would otherwise get cached for each guest and
> > >>would also be mapped for each guest separately
> > > 
> > > nooooooo. What you're saying there amounts to text replication.
> > > There is no proposal here to create duplicated copies of pagecache
> > > pages: the VM just doesn't support that (Nick has soe protopatches
> > > which do this as a possible NUMA optimisation).
> > > 
> > > So these mmapped pages will contiue to be shared across all
> > > guests. The problem boils down to "which guest(s) get charged for
> > > each shared page".
> > >
> > > A simple and obvious and easy-to-implement answer is "the guest
> > > which paged it in". I think we should firstly explain why that is
> > > insufficient.

> > I guess by "paged it in" you essentially mean
> > "mapped the page into address space for the *first* time"?
> 
> Not really - I mean "first allocated the page". ie: major fault(),
> read(), write(), etc.
> 
> > i.e. how many times the same page mapped into 2 address spaces
> > in the same container should be accounted for?
> > 
> > We believe ONE. It is better due to:
> > - it allows better estimate how much RAM container uses.
> > - if one container mapped a single page 10,000 times,
> >   it doesn't mean it is worse than a container which mapped only 200
> >   pages and that it should be killed in case of OOM.
> 
> I'm not sure that we need to account for pages at all, nor care about
> rss.
> 
> If we use a physical zone-based containment scheme: fake-numa,
> variable-sized zones, etc then it all becomes moot. 

sounds good to me, just not sure it provides what we 
need, but I'm sure I'll figure that with your help ...

> You set up a container which has 1.5GB of physial memory then toss
> processes into it. As that process set increases in size it will
> toss out stray pages which shouldn't be there, then it will start
> reclaiming and swapping out its own pages and eventually it'll get an
> oom-killing.

okay, let me ask a few naive questions about this scheme:

how does this work for a _file_ which is shared between 
two guests (e.g. an executable like bash, hardlinked 
between guests) when both guests are in a different 
zone-based container?

   + assumed that the file is read in the first time,
     will it be accounted to the first guest doing so?

   + assumed it is accessed in the second guest, will
     it cause any additional cache/mapping besides the
     dentry stuff?

   + will container A be able to 'toss out' pages
     'shared' with container B (assumed sharing is
     possible :)

   + when the container A tosses out the pages for this 
     executable, will guest B still be able to use them?

   + when the pages are tossed out, will they require
     the system to read them in again, or will they
     stay available ala swap cache?

> No RSS acounting or page acounting in sight, because we already *have*
> that stuff, at the physical level, in the zone.

I'm fine with that ...

> Overcommitment can be performed by allowing different containers to
> share the same zone set, or by dynamically increasing or decreasing
> the size of a physical container.

here the question is, can a guest have several of
those 'virtual zones' assigned, so that there is a
container specific and a shared zone for example?

> This all works today with fake-numa and cpusets, no kernel changes
> needed.

sounds good!

> It could be made to work fairly simply with a multi-zone approach, or
> with resizeable zones.
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing what you think the shortcomings of 
> this are likely to be,.

will do so once I have a better understanding how this
approach will work ...

TIA,
Herbert

-
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