[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090328181100.GB26686@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:41:00 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-27 13:59:33]:
> ==brief test result==
> On 2CPU/1.6GB bytes machine. create group A and B
> A. soft limit=300M
> B. no soft limit
>
> Run a malloc() program on B and allcoate 1G of memory. The program just
> sleeps after allocating memory and no memory refernce after it.
> Run make -j 6 and compile the kernel.
>
> When vm.swappiness = 60 => 60MB of memory are swapped out from B.
> When vm.swappiness = 10 => 1MB of memory are swapped out from B
>
> If no soft limit, 350MB of swap out will happen from B.(swapiness=60)
>
I ran the same tests, booted the machine with mem=1700M and maxcpus=2
Here is what I see with
A has a swapout of 344M and B has not swapout at all, since B is
always under its soft limit. vm.swappiness is set to 60
I think the above is more along the lines of the expected functional behaviour.
--
Balbir
--
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