Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-23 Thread Vladimir Davydov
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 02:01:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 04-07-14 19:38:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > Considering the example I've given above, both of these won't help if > > the system has other active CTs: the container will be forcefully kept > > around its high/low limit and, s

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-16 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 04-07-14 19:38:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 02:16:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Once I get from internal things (which will happen soon hopefully) I > > will post a series with a new sets of memcg limits. One of them is > > high_limit whic

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-10 Thread Vladimir Davydov
Hi Greg, On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:04:21AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Davydov > wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > >> How is this different from RLIMIT_AS? You specifically mentioned it > >> earlier

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-09 Thread Greg Thelen
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: >> How is this different from RLIMIT_AS? You specifically mentioned it >> earlier but you don't explain how this is different. > > The main difference is that RLIMIT_A

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-09 Thread Vladimir Davydov
Hi Tim, On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > How is this different from RLIMIT_AS? You specifically mentioned it > earlier but you don't explain how this is different. The main difference is that RLIMIT_AS is per process while this controller is per cgroup. RLIMIT_AS doe

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-09 Thread Tim Hockin
How is this different from RLIMIT_AS? You specifically mentioned it earlier but you don't explain how this is different. >From my perspective, this is pointless. There's plenty of perfectly correct software that mmaps files without concern for VSIZE, because they never fault most of those pages

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-09 Thread Vladimir Davydov
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:48:16PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hi, > > Typically, when a process calls mmap, it isn't given all the memory pages it > requested immediately. Instead, only its address space is grown, while the > memory pages will be actually allocated on the first use. If the s

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-04 Thread Vladimir Davydov
Hi Michal, On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 02:16:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 03-07-14 16:48:16, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Typically, when a process calls mmap, it isn't given all the memory pages it > > requested immediately. Instead, only its address space is grown, while the

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Virtual Memory Resource Controller for cgroups

2014-07-04 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 03-07-14 16:48:16, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hi, > > Typically, when a process calls mmap, it isn't given all the memory pages it > requested immediately. Instead, only its address space is grown, while the > memory pages will be actually allocated on the first use. If the system fails > to