[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090828144539.GN4889@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:15:39 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit.
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-08-28 23:29:09]:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-08-28
> > 16:35:23]:
> >
>
> >>
> >> Current soft-limit RB-tree will be easily broken i.e. not-sorted
> >> correctly
> >> if used under use_hierarchy=1.
> >>
> >
> > Not true, I think the sorted-ness is delayed and is seen when we pick
> > a tree for reclaim. Think of it as being lazy :)
> >
> plz explain how enexpectedly unsorted RB-tree can work sanely.
>
>
There are two checks built-in
1. In the reclaim path (we see how much to reclaim, compared to the
soft limit)
2. In the dequeue path where we check if we really are over soft limit
I did lot of testing with the time based approach and found no broken
cases, I;ve been testing it with the mmotm (event based approach and I
am yet to see a broken case so far).
--
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