On 06/27/2012 05:08 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
mm, maybe. Kernel developers tend to look at code from the point of
view "does it work as designed", "is it clean", "is it efficient", "do
I understand it", etc. We often forget to step back and really
consider whether or not it should be merged at all.
It's appropriate for true memory isolation so that applications cannot
cause an excess of slab to be consumed. This allows other applications to
have higher reservations without the risk of incurring a global oom
condition as the result of the usage of other memcgs.
Just a note for Andrew, we we're in the same page: The slab cache
limitation is not included in *this* particular series. The goal was
always to have other kernel resources limited as well, and the general
argument from David holds: we want a set of applications to run truly
independently from others, without creating memory pressure on the
global system.
The way history develop in this series, I started from the slab cache,
and a page-level tracking appeared on that series. I then figured it
would be better to start tracking something that is totally page-based,
such as the stack - that already accounts for 70 % of the
infrastructure, and then merge the slab code later. In this sense, it
was just a strategy inversion. But both are, and were, in the goals.
I'm not sure whether it would ever be appropriate to limit the amount of
slab for an individual slab cache, however, instead of limiting the sum of
all slab for a set of processes. With cache merging in slub this would
seem to be difficult to do correctly.
Yes, I do agree.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>