On Fri 21-10-11 21:34:06, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:29 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:33:09 -0700 > > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> this is a request for discussion (I hope we can touch this during memcg > >> meeting during the upcoming KS). I have brought this up earlier this > >> year before LSF (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/60464). > >> The patch got much smaller since then due to excellent Johannes' memcg > >> naturalization work (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68724) > >> which this is based on. > > > > Hi, Michal Hi Balbir, > > I'd like to understand, what the isolation is for? > > 1. Is it an alternative to memory guarantees? Not really, it is more about resident working set guarantee and workload isolations wrt. memory. > 2. How is this different from doing cpusets (fake NUMA) and isolating them? Yes this would work. I have not many experiences in this area but I guess the primary stopper for fake NUMA is that it is x86_64 only, configuration is static and little bit awkward to use (nodes of the same size e.g.). I understood that google is moving out of fake NUMA towards memcg for those reasons. > > Just trying to catch up, > Balbir -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>