Hi.
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
Major changes from previous version(*1):
- Rebased on 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 + KAMEZAWA-san's performance
improvement patchset v4.
- Implemented as a add-on to memory cgroup.
So, there is no need to add a new member to page_cgroup now.
- (NEW)Modified
This patch add cgroup files(and a member to struct mem_cgroup)
for swapcgroup.
The files to be added are:
- memory.swap_usage_in_bytes
- memory.swap_max_usage_in_bytes
- memory.swap_limit_in_bytes
- memory.swap_failcnt
The meaning of those files are the same as memory cgroup.
Signed-off-by:
This patch add a member to swap_info_struct for cgroup.
This member, array of pointers to mem_cgroup, is used to
remember to which cgroup each swap entries are charged.
The memory for this array of pointers is allocated on swapon,
and freed on swapoff.
Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL
This patch implements charge and uncharge of swapcgroup.
- what will be charged ?
charge the number of swap entries in bytes.
- when to charge/uncharge ?
charge at get_swap_entry(), and uncharge at swap_entry_free().
- to what group charge the swap entry ?
To determine to what mem_cgroup
This patch modifies vm_swap_full() to calculate
the rate of swap usage per cgroup.
The purpose of this change is to free freeable swap caches
(that is, swap entries) per cgroup, so that swap_cgroup_charge()
fails less frequently.
I think I can free freeable swap caches more agressively
with one
@@ -1892,3 +1892,36 @@ int valid_swaphandles(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned long
*offset)
*offset = ++toff;
return nr_pages? ++nr_pages: 0;
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTLR
+int swap_cgroup_vm_swap_full(struct page *page)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct swap_info_struct
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- 2.6.26-rc2-mm1.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ 2.6.26-rc2-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -2903,7 +2903,7 @@ int cgroup_clone(struct task_struct *tsk
cg = tsk-cgroups;
parent = task_cgroup(tsk, subsys-subsys_id);
-
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:18:51 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch add a member to swap_info_struct for cgroup.
This member, array of pointers to mem_cgroup, is used to
remember to which cgroup each swap entries are charged.
The memory for this array of pointers is
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:20:05 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTLR
+int swap_cgroup_charge(struct page *page,
+ struct swap_info_struct *si,
+ unsigned long offset)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct
On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:11:56 -0700 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- 2.6.26-rc2-mm1.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ 2.6.26-rc2-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -2903,7 +2903,7 @@ int cgroup_clone(struct task_struct *tsk
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:22:24 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ mem = p-memcg[swp_offset(entry)];
+ usage = swap_cgroup_read_usage(mem) / PAGE_SIZE;
+ limit = swap_cgroup_read_limit(mem) / PAGE_SIZE;
+ limit = (limit total_swap_pages) ? limit :
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 00:11:56 -0700 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- 2.6.26-rc2-mm1.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ 2.6.26-rc2-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -2903,7 +2903,7 @@ int cgroup_clone(struct
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:13:41 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
seems good in general.
Major changes from previous version(*1):
- Rebased on 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 + KAMEZAWA-san's performance
improvement patchset v4.
- Implemented as a
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:36:23 +0200 Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the reason for making this change?
the 'node_' prefix really is superfluous and misleading. what's a node ?
For gawd's sake guys. I've asked three times and now I'm getting
rhetorical questions for
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the change is, why it is being made, what the user-visible
presentation is, what the impact upon users is, why we think it won't
be a problem, etc? The stuff which should have been right there from
day
On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:23:35 -0700 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the change is, why it is being made, what the user-visible
presentation is, what the impact upon users is, why we think it
Hi.
On 2008/05/22 16:23 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:18:51 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch add a member to swap_info_struct for cgroup.
This member, array of pointers to mem_cgroup, is used to
remember to which cgroup each swap entries
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:23:35 -0700 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the change is, why it is being made, what the user-visible
presentation is, what the impact upon users is,
On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:46:54 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
==
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTR
void swap_cgroup_init_memcg(p, memcg)
{
do something.
}
#else
void swap_cgroup_init_memcg(p, memcg)
{
}
#endif
==
I think
Hi,
On 2008/05/22 17:00 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
Hi,
+#ifndef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTLR
/* Swap 50% full? Release swapcache more aggressively.. */
-#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages*2 total_swap_pages)
+#define vm_swap_full(page) (nr_swap_pages*2 total_swap_pages)
+#else
Hi,
On 2008/05/22 15:45 +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
@@ -1892,3 +1892,36 @@ int valid_swaphandles(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned
long *offset)
*offset = ++toff;
return nr_pages? ++nr_pages: 0;
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTLR
+int swap_cgroup_vm_swap_full(struct page
Hi Uchida-san,
I realized that the benchmark results which I posted on Apr 25 had
some problems with the testing environment.
From: Ryo Tsuruta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RFC][v2][patch 0/12][CFQ-cgroup]Yet another I/O
bandwidth controlling subsystem for CGroups based on CFQ
Date:
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c
@@ -587,10 +587,10 @@ int __init
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Applied, thanks Alexey. I'll also push this to -stable.
___
Devel mailing
Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
Hi.
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
Major changes from previous version(*1):
- Rebased on 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 + KAMEZAWA-san's performance
improvement patchset v4.
- Implemented as a add-on to memory cgroup.
So, there is no need to add a new member to page_cgroup
On 2008/05/22 16:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:13:41 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
seems good in general.
Thanks :-)
ToDo:
- handle force_empty.
Without this, we can do rmdir() against cgroup with
On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:13:41 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
I do not understand why this is useful.
With the other cgroup resource controllers, once a process
group reaches its limit, it is limited or punished in some
way. For example, when it
(sorry, I sent the previous mail before completing it)
On 2008/05/23 11:10 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
On 2008/05/22 16:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
(snip)
- make it possible for users to select if they use
this feature or not, and avoid overhead for users
not using this
Hi, Tsuruta-san,
Thanks for your test.
Uchida-san said,
In the test #2 and #3, did you use direct write?
I guess you have used the non-direct write I/O (using cache).
I answered Yes, but actually I did not use direct write I/O, because
I ran these tests on Xen-HVM. Xen-HVM backend
On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:26:55 -0400
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even worse is that a cgroup has NO CONTROL over how much
of its memory is kept in RAM and how much is swapped out.
Could you explain NO CONTROL ? cgroup has LRU
'how mucch memory should be swapped out from memory' is
On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:10:27 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:26:55 -0400
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even worse is that a cgroup has NO CONTROL over how much
of its memory is kept in RAM and how much is swapped out.
Could you explain NO
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:26:55 -0400
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even worse is that a cgroup has NO CONTROL over how much
of its memory is kept in RAM and how much is swapped out.
We used to have a control on the swap cache pages as well, but their
Hi.
On 2008/05/23 6:27 +0900, Balbir Singh wrote:
Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
Hi.
I updated my swapcgroup patch.
Major changes from previous version(*1):
- Rebased on 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 + KAMEZAWA-san's performance
improvement patchset v4.
- Implemented as a add-on to memory cgroup.
So,
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
One option is to limit the virtual address space usage of the cgroup to
ensure
that swap usage of a cgroup will *not* exceed the specified limit. Along
with a
good swap controller, it should provide good control over the cgroup's
memory usage.
unfortunately, it
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:21:04 +0530
Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
One option is to limit the virtual address space usage of the cgroup to
ensure
that swap usage of a cgroup will *not* exceed the specified limit. Along
with a
good swap controller, it
35 matches
Mail list logo
