On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, I disagree this change. > > > > mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check() is used for checking how much current usage > > exceeds > > the soft_limit_in_bytes and updating softlimit tree asynchronously, instead > > of > > checking every charge/uncharge. What if you change the soft_limit_in_bytes, > > but the number of charges and uncharges are very balanced afterwards ? > > The softlimit tree will not be updated for a long time. > > I don't see how my patch affects the logic you've described. > Statistics updates and > checks in the same place. It just uses decrement instead of increment. > Ah... my bad. Ignore this comment, please. I misunderstood this patch. > > > > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ? > > I think it would be better: > > > > - discard this change. > > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check, > > and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like: > > > > if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) { > > mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page); > > mem_cgroup_threshold(mem); > > } > > I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should be > run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS > between soft limits and thresholds in this case? > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(charge and uncharge). So, I think those events can be shared. Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ? Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
