[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090810094344.77a8ef55.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:43:44 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
andi.kleen@...el.com, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3)
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:32:29 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 1. you use res_counter_read_positive() in force_empty. It seems force_empty can
> go into infinite loop. plz check. (especially when some pages are freed or swapped-in
> in other cpu while force_empry runs.)
>
> 2. In near future, we'll see 256 or 1024 cpus on a system, anyway.
> Assume 1024cpu system, 64k*1024=64M is a tolerance.
> Can't we calculate max-tolerane as following ?
>
> tolerance = min(64k * num_online_cpus(), limit_in_bytes/100);
> tolerance /= num_online_cpus();
> per_cpu_tolerance = min(16k, tolelance);
>
> I think automatic runtine adjusting of tolerance will be finally necessary,
> but above will not be very bad because we can guarantee 1% tolerance.
>
Sorry, one more.
3. As I requested when you pushed softlimit changes to mmotom, plz consider
to implement a way to check-and-notify gadget to res_counter.
See: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=124753058921677&w=2
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