On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:34:05 +0900 (JST) Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've decided to get Ryo to post the accurate dirty-page tracking patch > for bio-cgroup, which isn't perfect yet though. The memory controller > never wants to support this tracking because migrating a page between > memory cgroups is really heavy. > > I also thought enhancing the memory controller would be good enough, > but a lot of people said they wanted to control memory resource and > block I/O resource separately. > So you can create several bio-cgroup in one memory-cgroup, > or you can use bio-cgroup without memory-cgroup. > > I also have a plan to implement more acurate tracking mechanism > on bio-cgroup after the memory cgroup team re-implement the infrastructure, > which won't be supported by memory-cgroup. > When a process are moved into another memory cgroup, > the pages belonging to the process don't move to the new cgroup > because migrating pages is so heavy. It's hard to find the pages > from the process and migrating pages may cause some memory pressure. > I'll implement this feature only on bio-cgroup with minimum overhead > I really would like to move page_cgroup to new cgroup when the process moves... But it's just in my plan and I'm not sure I can do it or not. Anyway what's next for me is 1. fix current discussion to remove page->page_cgroup pointer. 2. reduce locks. 3. support swap and swap-cache. I think algorithm for (1), (2) is now getting smart. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
