On Fri 07-09-18 16:30:59, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 09/07/2018 02:34 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 06-09-18 15:53:34, Shuah Khan wrote: > > [...] > >> A few critical allocations could be satisfied and root cgroup prevails. It > >> is not the > >> intent to have exclusivity at the expense of the kernel. > > > > Well, it is not "few critical allocations". It can be a lot of > > memory. Basically any GFP_KERNEL allocation. So how exactly you expect > > this to work when you cannot estimate how much > > memory will kernel eat? > > > >> > >> This feature will allow a way to configure cpusets on non-NUMA for > >> workloads that can > >> benefit from the reservation and isolation that is available within the > >> constraints of > >> exclusive cpuset policies. > > > > AFAIR this was the first approach Google took for the memory isolation > > and they moved over to memory cgroups. > > In addition to isolation, being able to reserve a block instead is one of the > issues I am looking to address. Unfortunately memory cgroups won't address > that > issue.
Could you be more specific why you need reservations other than isolation. > I would recommend to talk to > > those guys bebfore you introduce potentially a lot of code that will not > > really work for the workload you indend it for. > > > > Will you be able to point me to a good contact at Goggle and/or some pointers > on finding discussion on the memory isolation. My searches on lkml came up > short, Well, Ying Han who used to work on memcg early days is working on a different project. So I am not really sure. https://lwn.net/Articles/459585/ might tell you more. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
