On 05/29/2012 11:26 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
But we really need a page to be filled with objects from the same cgroup, and
the non-shared objects to be accounted to the right place.
No other subsystem has such a requirement. Even the NUMA nodes are mostly
suggestions and can be ignored by the allocators to use memory from other
pages.
Of course it does. Memcg itself has such a requirement. The collective
set of processes needs to have the pages it uses accounted to it, and
never go over limit.
Otherwise, I don't think we can meet even the lighter of isolation guarantees.
The approach works just fine with NUMA and cpusets. Isolation is mostly
done on the per node boundaries and you already have per node statistics.
I don't know about cpusets in details, but at least with NUMA, this is
not an apple-to-apple comparison. a NUMA node is not meant to contain
you. A container is, and that is why it is called a container.
NUMA just means what is the *best* node to put my memory.
Now, if you actually say, through you syscalls "this is the node it
should live in", then you have a constraint, that to the best of my
knowledge is respected.
Now isolation here, is done in the container boundary. (cgroups, to be
generic).
--
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>