On Wed 27-02-13 18:57:32, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> >> + *
> >> + */
> >> +unsigned int mem_cgroup_low_limit_scale(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *mz;
> >> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> >> + unsigned long long low_limit;
> >> + unsigned long long usage;
On Thu 28-02-13 15:13:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 27.02.2013, 20:14, "Michal Hocko" :
> > On Wed 27-02-13 14:39:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> >> 2) cgroup's prioritization during global reclaim,
> >
> > Yes, group priorities sound like a useful feature not just for the
> > reclaim I would like
27.02.2013, 20:14, "Michal Hocko" :
> On Wed 27-02-13 14:39:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
>> 27.02.2013, 13:41, "Michal Hocko" :
>>> Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the private
>>> communication.
>>>
>>> We already have soft limit which can be implemented to achieve the
>>> same/
On Wed 27-02-13 14:39:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 27.02.2013, 13:41, "Michal Hocko" :
> > Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the private
> > communication.
> >
> > We already have soft limit which can be implemented to achieve the
> > same/similar functionality and in fact this is a lo
Please find my comments below.
> More comments on the code bellow.
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 53b8201..d8e6ee6 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -1743,6 +1743,53 @@ static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct
>> mem_cgr
27.02.2013, 13:41, "Michal Hocko" :
> Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the private
> communication.
>
> We already have soft limit which can be implemented to achieve the
> same/similar functionality and in fact this is a long term objective (at
> least for me). I hope I will be able
> So the new low limit is not a rigid limit. Global reclaim can reclaim
> from a cgroup when its usage is below low_limit_in_bytes although such
> reclaim is less aggressive than when usage is above low_limit_in_bytes.
> Correct?
That's true.
But such reclaim occurs only on very small reclaiming
On Wed 27-02-13 12:02:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> I've implemented low limits for memory cgroups. The primary goal was
> to add an ability to protect some memory from reclaiming without using
> mlock(). A kind of "soft mlock()".
Let me restate what I have already mentioned in the pri
On Wed, Feb 27 2013, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> I've implemented low limits for memory cgroups. The primary goal was to add
> an ability
> to protect some memory from reclaiming without using mlock(). A kind of "soft
> mlock()".
>
> I think this patch will be helpful when it's necessa
Hi, all!
I've implemented low limits for memory cgroups. The primary goal was to add an
ability
to protect some memory from reclaiming without using mlock(). A kind of "soft
mlock()".
I think this patch will be helpful when it's necessary to protect production
processes from
memory-wasting ba
10 matches
Mail list logo
