On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:43:17 -0700 Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:43 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki < > kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:19:46 -0700 > > Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:38 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:21:21 -0700 > > > > Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > To clarify a bit, my question was meant to account it but not necessary to > > limit it. We can use existing cpu cgroup to do the cpu limiting, and I am > > > just wondering how to configure it for the memcg kswapd thread. > > Let's say in the per-memcg-kswapd model, i can echo the kswapd thread pid > into the cpu cgroup ( the same set of process of memcg, but in a cpu > limiting cgroup instead). If the kswapd is shared, we might need extra work > to account the cpu cycles correspondingly. > Hm ? statistics of elapsed_time isn't enough ? Now, I think limiting scan/sec interface is more promissing rather than time or thread controls. It's easier to understand. BTW, I think it's better to avoid the watermark reclaim work as kswapd. It's confusing because we've talked about global reclaim at LSF. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>