On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:29:58 -0500 Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > > And I'd judge that per-container RSS limits are of considerably more value > > than antifrag (in fact per-container RSS might be a superset of antifrag, > > in the sense that per-container RSS and containers could be abused to fix > > the i-cant-get-any-hugepages problem, dunno). > > The RSS bits really worry me, since it looks like they could > exacerbate the scalability problems that we are already running > into on very large memory systems. Using a zone-per-container or N-64MB-zones-per-container should actually move us in the direction of *fixing* any such problems. Because, to a first-order, the scanning of such a zone has the same behaviour as a 64MB machine. (We'd run into a few other problems, some related to the globalness of the dirty-memory management, but that's fixable). > Linux is *not* happy on 256GB systems. Even on some 32GB systems > the swappiness setting *needs* to be tweaked before Linux will even > run in a reasonable way. Please send testcases. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
