On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:17:19 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:16:17 +0100 (BST) > Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:46:45 +0100 (BST) > > > Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > IIRC Rik expressed the same by pointing out that a cgroup at its > > > > swap limit would then be forced to grow in mem (until it hits its > > > > mem limit): so controlling the less precious resource would increase > > > > pressure on the more precious resource. (Actually, that probably > > > > bears little relation to what he said - sorry, Rik!) I don't recall > > > > what answer he got, perhaps I'd be persuaded if I heard it again. > > > > > > > Added Nishimura to CC. > > > > > > IMHO, from user point of view, both of > > > - having 2 controls as mem controller + swap controller > > > - mem + swap controller > > > doesn't have much difference. The users will use as they like. > > > > I'm not suggesting either one of those alternatives. > > > > I'm suggesting we have a mem controller (the thing we already have) > > and a mem+swap controller (which we don't yet have: a controller > > for the total mem+swap of a cgroup); the mem+swap controller likely > > making use of much that is in the mem controller, as Paul has said. > > > Ah, what mem+swap controller means is limitiing mem+swap by 'a' limit ? > It's a choice for me. From view of global LRU management, it's better.
> If we can avoid an accident that the swap is fully used by some silly program, > anything is ok to me. > This was the intention of swap controller, and I agree that anything would be ok if it can avoid these situations. (snip) > > > state 4) Run a big program on B. > > > A...memory_usage=500M swap_usage=700M. > > > B...memory_usage=1G swap_usage=300M > > If you believe a swap controller would make that better, what limits > > do you suggest? If you assign A a swap limit of 700M or above, it > > changes nothing; if you assign A a swap limit below 700M, it cannot > > do all the work that it could do in the example. > > Of course, set A's swap_limit of 300M and get swap pages into memory and > free swap entries and make A on memory. (before B starts.) > I think so too. That's why I said before that shrinking should be supported in swap controller too, so that users (middle ware) can decrease the swap usage by themselves. > > > But users think why A uses 700M of swap with 500M of free memory.... > > > > Because at this time A isn't actively using any of that 700M. > > That's a weakness of "do all by automatic detection and ideal algoritm". > It's just a result of LRU algorithm, which is not always the users think > ideal. > Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel