On 3/11/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:26:41 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <dev@xxxxx> wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300 > > > Pavel Emelianov <xemul@xxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>+struct rss_container { > > >>+ struct res_counter res; > > >>+ struct list_head page_list; > > >>+ struct container_subsys_state css; > > >>+}; > > >>+ > > >>+struct page_container { > > >>+ struct page *page; > > >>+ struct rss_container *cnt; > > >>+ struct list_head list; > > >>+}; > > > > > > > > > ah. This looks good. I'll find a hunk of time to go through this work > > > and through Paul's patches. It'd be good to get both patchsets lined > > > up in -mm within a couple of weeks. But.. > > > > > > We need to decide whether we want to do per-container memory limitation via > > > these data structures, or whether we do it via a physical scan of some > > > software zone, possibly based on Mel's patches. > > i.e. a separate memzone for each container? > > Yep. Straightforward machine partitioning. An attractive thing is that it > 100% reuses existing page reclaim, unaltered. We discussed zones for resource control and some of the disadvantages at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/30/222 I need to look at Mel's patches to determine if they are suitable for control. But in a thread of discussion on those patches, it was agreed that memory fragmentation and resource control are independent issues. > > > imho memzone approach is inconvinient for pages sharing and shares accounting. > > it also makes memory management more strict, forbids overcommiting > > per-container etc. > > umm, who said they were requirements? > We discussed some of the requirements in the RFC: Memory Controller requirements thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/30/51 > > Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this? > > We need to work out what the requirements are before we can settle on an > implementation. > > Sigh. Who is running this show? Anyone? > All the stake holders involved in the RFC discussion :-) We've been talking and building on top of each others patches. I hope that was a good answer ;) > You can actually do a form of overcommittment by allowing multiple > containers to share one or more of the zones. Whether that is sufficient > or suitable I don't know. That depends on the requirements, and we haven't > even discussed those, let alone agreed to them. > There are other things like resizing a zone, finding the right size, etc. I'll look at Mel's patches to see what is supported. Warm Regards, Balbir Singh _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers