[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29463997.1213012967896.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:02:47 +0900 (JST)
From: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org, yamamoto@...inux.co.jp
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy
----- Original Message -----
way, breaks limit semantics.
>>>
>> Not easy to use in my point of view. Can we use 'share' in proper way
>> on no-swap machine ?
>>
>
>Not sure I understand your question. Share represents the share of available
>resources.
>
If no swap, you cannot reclaim anonymous pages and shared memory.
Then, the kernel has to abandon any kinds of auto-balancing somewhere.
(just an example. Things will be more complicated when we consinder
mlocked pages and swap-resource-controller.)
>> yield() after callback() means that res_counter's state will be
>> far different from the state after callback.
>> So, we have to yield before call back and check res_coutner sooner.
>>
>
>But does yield() get us any guarantees of seeing the state change?
>
Hmm, myabe my explanation is bad.
in following sequence
1.callback()
2.yield()
3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 1->3 is big.
in following
1.yield()
2.callback()
3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 2->3 is small.
There is an option to implement "changing limit grarually"
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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