KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:55:47 +0300 > Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Can Balbir's soft-limit patches help ? >> [snip] >> >>> Yes, that could be a useful part of the solution - I suspect we'd need >>> to have kswapd do the soft-limit push back as well as in >>> try_to_free_pages(), to avoid the high-priority jobs getting stuck in >>> the reclaim code. It would also be nice if we had: >> BTW, one of the way OpenVZ users determine how much memory they >> need for containers is the following: they set the limits to >> maximal values and then check the "maxheld" (i.e. the maximal level >> of consumption over the time) value. >> >> Currently, we don't have such in res_counters and I'm going to >> implement this. Objections? >> > Basically, no objection. > > BTW, which does it means ? > - create a new cgroup to accounting max memory consumption, etc... > or > - add new member to mem_cgroup > or > - add new member to res_counter The third one - new member on res_counter. This will cost us 8 more bytes on mem_cgroup and no performance impact, since the new field is about to be touched only together with the limit and usage ones, and thus is in one cacheline. > Thanks, > -Kame > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
