On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 19:13 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Chandra Seetharaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > c) pointer to prototype code if poss > > > > Both the memory controllers are fully functional. We need to trim them > > down. > > > > active/inactive list per class memory controller: > > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ckrm/mem_rc-f0.4-2615-v2.tz?download > > Oh my gosh. That converts memory reclaim from per-zone LRU to > per-CKRM-class LRU. If configured.
Yes. We originally had an implementation that would use the existing per-zone LRU, but the reclamation path was O(n), where n is the number of classes. So, we moved towards a O(1) algorithm. > > This is huge. It means that we have basically two quite different versions > of memory reclaim to test and maintain. This is a problem. Understood, will work and come up with an acceptable memory controller. > > (I hope that's the before-we-added-comments version of the patch btw). Yes, indeed :). As I told earlier this patch is not ready for lkml or - mm yet. > > > pzone based memory controller: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=113867467006531&w=2 > > From a super-quick scan that looks saner. Is it effective? Is this the > way you're planning on proceeding? > Yes, it is effective, and the reclamation is O(1) too. It has couple of problems by design, (1) doesn't handle shared pages and (2) doesn't provide support for both min_shares and max_shares. > This requirement is basically a glorified RLIMIT_RSS manager, isn't it? > Just that it covers a group of mm's and not just the one mm? Yes, that is the core object of ckrm, associate resources to a group of tasks. > > Do you attempt to manage just pagecache? So if class A tries to read 10GB > from disk, does that get more aggressively reclaimed based on class A's > resource limits? Yes, it would get more aggressively reclaimed. But, if you have the I/O controller also configured appropriately only class A will be affected. > > This all would have been more comfortable if done on top of the 2.4 > kernel's virtual scanner. > > (btw, using the term "class" to identify a group of tasks isn't very > comfortable - it's an instance, not a class...) We could go with "Resource Group" as Matt suggested. > > Valerie, KUROSAWA, Please free to add any more details. > Worried. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
