On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:11:14 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to post some patches below in the next week.
> - throttling the number of callers of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> - background reclaim and high/low watermark.
> - some cleanups.
>
I'd like to hold
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:02:32 -0800
"Paul Menage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007 10:36 AM, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > With the /proc/refaults info, we can measure how much extra
> > memory each process group needs, if any.
>
> What's the status of that? It looks as
On Dec 1, 2007 10:36 AM, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With the /proc/refaults info, we can measure how much extra
> memory each process group needs, if any.
What's the status of that? It looks as though it would be better than
the "accessed in the last N seconds" metric that we've b
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:20:29 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In our experience, users are not good at figuring out how much memory
> > they really need. In general they tend to massively over-estimate
> > their requirements. So we want some way to determine how much of its
> > al
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 6:11 PM, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And also some
>> results or even anecdotes of where this is going to be used would be
>> interesting...
>
> We want to be able to run multiple isolated jobs on the same machine.
> So being able to limit how muc
On Nov 29, 2007 6:11 PM, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And also some
> results or even anecdotes of where this is going to be used would be
> interesting...
We want to be able to run multiple isolated jobs on the same machine.
So being able to limit how much memory each job can consume,
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:43:35 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA-San posted some test results on background reclaim and per zone
> reclaim
>
I'd like to post some patches below in the next week.
- throttling the number of callers of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
- backgr
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2007 01:43, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> They say better strike when the iron is hot.
>>
>> Since we have so many people discussing the memory controller, I would
>> like to access the readiness of the memory controller for mainline
>> merge. Given that we have
On Friday 30 November 2007 01:43, Balbir Singh wrote:
> They say better strike when the iron is hot.
>
> Since we have so many people discussing the memory controller, I would
> like to access the readiness of the memory controller for mainline
> merge. Given that we have some time until the merge
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:13:17 +0530
> Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> They say better strike when the iron is hot.
>>
>> Since we have so many people discussing the memory controller, I would
>> like to access the readiness of the memory controller for mainline
>>
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:13:17 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They say better strike when the iron is hot.
>
> Since we have so many people discussing the memory controller, I would
> like to access the readiness of the memory controller for mainline
> merge.
> At the VM-Summit we
11 matches
Mail list logo
