On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:26 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > mem+swap controller means a shrink to memory resource controller > > (try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()) should drop only file caches. > > (Because kick-out-to-swap will never changes the usage.) > > > > right ? only global-lru can make a swap. > > maybe I can add optimization to do this. Hmm. I should see how OOM works > > under some situation. > > > (I'm sorry that I'm not a good writer of e-mail.) > > A brief summary about changes to mem controller. > > - mem+swap controller which limits the # sum of pages and swap_entries. > - mem+swap controller just drops file caches when it reaches limit. > - under mem+swap controller, recaliming Anon pages make no sense. > Then, > - LRU for Anon is not necessary. > - LRU for tmpfs/shmem is not necessary. > just showing account is better. > - we should see try_to_free_mem_cgroup() again to avoid too much OOM. > Maybe Retries=5 is too small because we never do swap under us. > a problem like struck-into-ext3-journal can easily make file-cache reclaim > difficult. > - need some changes to documentation. > - Should we have on/off switch of taking swap into account ? > or should we implement mem+swap contoller in different name than > "memory" controller ? > If swap is not accounted, we need to do swap-out in memory reclaiming path, > again. > Then, mem+swap controller finally means - under mem+swap controller, program works with no swap. Only global LRU may make pages swapped-out. - If swap-accounting-mode is off, swap can be used unlimitedly. Hmm, sounds a bit differenct from what I want. How about others ? Thanks, -Kame > > Thanks, > -Kame > > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers