On 2008/05/15 17:56 +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >>> > If so, why is this better >>> > than charging for actual swap usage? >>> >>> its behaviour is more determinstic and it uses less memory. >>> (than nishimura-san's one, which charges for actual swap usage.) >>> Consuming more memory cannot be helped for my controller... >> Using less memory is good, but maybe not worth it if the result isn't so useful. >> >> I'd say that it's less deterministic than nishimura-san's controller - >> with his you just need to know how much swap is in use (which you can >> tell by observing the app on a real system) but with yours you also >> have to know whether there are any processes sharing anon pages (but >> not mms). > > deterministic in the sense that, even when two or more processes > from different cgroups are sharing a page, both of them, rather than > only unlucky one, are always charged. > I'm not sure whether this behavior itself is good or bad, but I think it's not good idea to make memory controller, which charges only one process for a shared page, and swap controller behave differently. I think it will be confusing for users. At least, I would feel it strange. > another related advantage is that it's possible to move charges > quite precisely when moving a task among cgroups. > Moving charges is one of future todo of my controller. But, as you say, it won't be so precise as yours. Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
