* Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-05-16 12:57:29]: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:00:34PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > * Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-05-12 16:53:52]: > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > Here is a patch series that is a result of the memcg discussions on > > > LSF (memcg-aware global reclaim, global lru removal, struct > > > page_cgroup reduction, soft limit implementation) and the recent > > > feature discussions on linux-mm. > > > > > > The long-term idea is to have memcgs no longer bolted to the side of > > > the mm code, but integrate it as much as possible such that there is a > > > native understanding of containers, and that the traditional !memcg > > > setup is just a singular group. This series is an approach in that > > > direction. > > > > > > It is a rather early snapshot, WIP, barely tested etc., but I wanted > > > to get your opinions before further pursuing it. It is also part of > > > my counter-argument to the proposals of adding memcg-reclaim-related > > > user interfaces at this point in time, so I wanted to push this out > > > the door before things are merged into .40. > > > > > > The patches are quite big, I am still looking for things to factor and > > > split out, sorry for this. Documentation is on its way as well ;) > > > > > > #1 and #2 are boring preparational work. #3 makes traditional reclaim > > > in vmscan.c memcg-aware, which is a prerequisite for both removal of > > > the global lru in #5 and the way I reimplemented soft limit reclaim in > > > #6. > > > > A large part of the acceptance would be based on what the test results > > for common mm benchmarks show. > > I will try to ensure the following things: > > 1. will not degrade performance on !CONFIG_MEMCG kernels > > 2. will not degrade performance on CONFIG_MEMCG kernels without > configured memcgs. This might be the most important one as most > desktop/server distributions enable the memory controller per default > > 3. will not degrade overall performance of workloads running > concurrently in separate memory control groups. I expect some shifts, > however, that even out performance differences. > > Please let me know what you consider common mm benchmarks. 1, 2 and 3 do sound nice, what workload do you intend to run? We used reaim, lmbench, page fault rate based tests. -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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>