On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:58:52 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If memory controller is used, we can limit maximum usage of memory per > > applications. Workload can be isolated per cgroup. > > This is good one progress. But maybe I need more features for my purpose....maybe. > > > > One consideration is... > > Now, memory controller can tamper LRU/relcaim handling but cannot do > > free memory. For guaranteing amount of usable memory for an applicatons, > > using VM is the best answer. > > This is a hard question? In the past it has been suggested that we use > hard limits to implement guarantees. Once we have the kernel memory > controller, guarantees might be easier to implement (we need account > for non-reclaimable resources) > yes, I'm looking forward to see the kernel memory controller. But maybe guarantee amount of *immediately usable* memory (like mempool) for cgroup is not the same issue as to guarantee free-cache for kernel memory. > > But sometimes it can't be used. > > I'm wondering whether we can add free-memory controller or not. It will > > gather free memory for some cgroup with low <-> min <-> high + page-order setup > > and work as buffer within cgroup <-> system workload. > > But I'm not sure this idea is good or not ;) > > > > I think it might be good to explore it more. The other idea is to > limit a soft-limit, such that memory is only reclaimed when there is > memory pressure. > thanks, I'll dig more. > > - back ground reclaim (Maybe it's better to wait for RvR's LRU set merge.) > > - guarantee some amount of memory not to be reclaimed by global LRU. > > - per cgroup swappiness. > > - swap controller. (limit swap usage...maybe independet from memory > > controller.) > > > > belows are no patch, no plan topics. > > - limit amount of mlock. > > - limit amount of hugepages. > > - more parameters for page reclaim. > > - balancing on NUMA (if we can find good algorythm...) > > - dirty_ratio per cgroup. > > > > - multi-level memory controller. > > > We might also need to consider the following > > 1. Implementation of shares > 2. Implementation of virtual memory limit limiting virtual memory like vm.overcommit_memory ? > > If you have feature-lists against memory controller, I'd like to see. > > > > > > Note: > > In last year, limit size of page-cache was posted but denied. It is said that > > free memory is bad memory. Now, I never think anything just for limitig > > page-cache will be accepted. > > > > This topic needs more discussion, we have some form of page-cache > control built into the memory controller. > Hmm. ok. I'looking forward to see. Regards, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers