Sorry for many mails ;(
I think I misunderstood something...
Following is ?
A brief summary about changes in memroy controller.
- memory.limit_in_bytes works as it is now.
- new parameter: memory.limit_in_bytes_includes_swap will be added.
+ memory.limit_in_bytes_includes_swap controlls the total amount of
RAM + SWAP,
+ memory.limit_in_bytes <= memory.limit_in_bytes_includes_swap
As a result.
- memory controller works as it is but doesn't use too much swap.
- global-lru cannot be affected by controller's parameter.
Hmm, seems reasonable. minor problem is how-to-handle 2 counts/limits ?
BTW, does anyone have good names ?
(example) memory.memory_limits_in_bytes. (for accounting memory)
memory.total_limits_in_bytes. (for accountign memory+swap)
Thanks,
-Kame
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
