On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:29 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:11:42 -0400 > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > - Somebody also gave an example where there is a memory hogging process and >> > > > possibly pushes out some processes to swap. It does not sound fair to >> > > > charge those proccess for that swap writeout. These processes never >> > > > requested swap IO. >> > >> > I think that swap writeouts should be charged to the memory hogging >> > process, because the process consumes more resources and it should get >> > a penalty. >> > >> >> A process requesting memory gets IO penalty? IMHO, swapping is a kernel >> mechanism and kernel's way of providing extended RAM. If we want to solve >> the issue of memory hogging by a process then right way to solve is to use >> memory controller and not by charging the process for IO activity. >> Instead, proabably a more suitable way is to charge swap activity to root >> group (where by default all the kernel related activity goes). >> > > I agree. It't memcg's job. > (Support dirty_ratio in memcg is necessary, I think) > > background-write-out-to-swap-for-memory-shortage should be handled > as kernel I/O. If swap-out-by-memcg bacause of its limit is a problem, > dirty_ratio for memcg should be implemetned. I tend to agree, looks like dirty_ratio will become important along with overcommit support in the future. Balbir Singh. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
