Paul Menage wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Alas, I fear this might have quite bad worst-case behaviour. One small
>> container which is under constant memory pressure will churn the
>> system-wide LRUs like mad, and will consume rather a lot of system time.
>> So it's a point at which container A can deleteriously affect things
>> which
>> are running in other containers, which is exactly what we're supposed to
>> not do.
>
> I think it's OK for a container to consume lots of system time during
> reclaim, as long as we can account that time to the container involved
> (i.e. if it's done during direct reclaim rather than by something like
> kswapd).
>
> Churning the LRU could well be bad though, I agree.
>
I completely agree with you on reclaim consuming time.
Churning the LRU can be avoided by the means I mentioned before
1. Add a container pointer (per page struct), it is also
useful for the page cache controller
2. Check if the page belongs to a particular container before
the list_del(&page->lru), so that those pages can be skipped.
3. Use a double LRU list by overloading the lru list_head of
struct page.
> Paul
>
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
