hi,
> > --- linux-2.6.24-rc2-mm1-kame-pd/kernel/res_counter.c.BACKUP
> > 2007-11-14 16:05:52.000000000 +0900
> > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc2-mm1-kame-pd/kernel/res_counter.c 2007-11-22
> > 15:14:32.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ void res_counter_init(struct res_counter
> > {
> > spin_lock_init(&counter->lock);
> > counter->limit = (unsigned long long)LLONG_MAX;
> > + counter->high_watermark = (unsigned long long)LLONG_MAX;
> > + counter->low_watermark = (unsigned long long)LLONG_MAX;
>
> Should low watermark also be LLONG_MAX?
what else do you suggest? 0?
currently it doesn't matter much because low_watermark is not used at all
as far as high_watermark is LLONG_MAX.
> > +static void
> > +mem_cgroup_reclaim(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup * const mem =
> > + container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, reclaim_work);
> > + int batch_count = 128; /* XXX arbitrary */
>
> Could we define and use something like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT for now?
> Later we could consider and see if it needs to be tunable. numbers are
> hard to read in code.
although i don't think it makes sense, i can do so if you prefer.
> > +
> > + for (; batch_count > 0; batch_count--) {
> > + if (res_counter_below_low_watermark(&mem->res))
> > + break;
>
> Shouldn't we also check to see that we start reclaim in background only
> when we are above the high watermark?
i don't understand what you mean. can you explain?
highwatermark is checked by mem_cgroup_charge_common before waking
these threads.
> I'll start some tests on these patches.
thanks.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
