[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090331155810.85bfb987.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:58:10 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.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
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:19:02 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > At some point, memcg soft limit reclaim
> > > hits A and reclaims memory from it, allowing B to run without any
> > > problems. I am talking about the state at the end of the experiment.
> > >
> > Considering LRU rotation (ACTIVE->INACTIVE), pages in group B never goes back
> > to ACTIVE list and can be the first candidates for swap-out via kswapd.
> >
> > Hmm....kswapd doesn't work at all ?
> >
> > (or 1700MB was too much.)
> >
>
> No 1700MB is not too much, since we reclaim from A towards the end
> when ld runs. I need to investigate more and look at the watermarks,
> may be soft limit reclaim reclaims enough and/or the watermarks are
> not very high. I use fake NUMA nodes as well.
>
When talking about XXMB of swap, +100MB is much ;)
-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