Hugh Dickins wrote:
but I do have an initial hypothesis
CPU0 CPU1
try_to_unuse
task 1 stars exiting look at mm = task1-mm
.. increment mm_users
task 1 exits
mm-owner needs
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 6b6b6b8b
IP: [7817078f] memrlimit_cgroup_uncharge_as+0x18/0x29
*pde =
Oops: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
last sysfs file: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cache/index2/shared_cpu_map
Modules linked in: acpi_cpufreq
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 6b6b6b8b
IP: [7817078f] memrlimit_cgroup_uncharge_as+0x18/0x29
Pid: 22500, comm: swapoff Not tainted (2.6.26-rc8-mm1 #7)
[78161323] ? exit_mmap+0xaf/0x133
[781226b1] ?
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 6b6b6b8b
IP: [7817078f] memrlimit_cgroup_uncharge_as+0x18/0x29
Pid: 22500, comm: swapoff Not tainted (2.6.26-rc8-mm1 #7)
[78161323] ? exit_mmap+0xaf/0x133
2008/7/25 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are applications that can/need to handle overcommit, just that we are
not
aware of them fully. Immediately after our meeting, I was pointed to
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
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
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that I'm denying you a way to guarantee that (though I've
been thinking more of the limits than the guarantees): I'm not saying
that you cannot have a mem controller, I'm saying that you can also
have a
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm trying to say something stronger than that. I'm saying,
as I've said before, that I cannot imagine why anyone would want
to control swap itself - what they want to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
I see what your saying. When you look at Linux right now, we control swap
independent of memory, so I am not totally opposed to setting swap, instead of
swap+mem. I might not want to swap from a particular cgroup, in which case, I
set swap to 0 and
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
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:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:26 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mem+swap controller means a shrink to memory resource controller
(try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()) should drop only file caches.
(Because kick-out-to-swap will never changes the usage.)
right ? only global-lru can
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:26 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mem+swap controller means a shrink to memory resource controller
(try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()) should drop only file caches.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:14:07 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:26 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mem+swap controller means a shrink to memory
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:58:03 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:14:07 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:15 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:26 +0900
KAMEZAWA
Sorry for many mails ;(
I think I misunderstood something...
Following is ?
A brief summary about changes in memroy controller.
- memory.limit_in_bytes works as it is now.
- new parameter: memory.limit_in_bytes_includes_swap will be added.
+ memory.limit_in_bytes_includes_swap controlls
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:14:55 -0400 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Balbir,
Andrew included the memrlimit controller in his latest set of patches
to Linus for mainline.
I've asked Linus to drop all 238 patches. I'll be resending them minus
the offending memrlimit patches.
Did I
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote:
So I think we'd be complicating some of the vm paths in mainline with
a feature that isn't likely to get a lot of real use.
What do you (and others on the containers list) think? Should we ask
Andrew/Linus to hold off on this for now? My preference
Paul Menage wrote:
Hi Balbir,
Andrew included the memrlimit controller in his latest set of patches
to Linus for mainline.
Although the memrlimit controller basically works as intended, my
impression from the mini-summit on Tuesday is that our consensus is
that this still doesn't have
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:14:55 -0400 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Balbir,
Andrew included the memrlimit controller in his latest set of patches
to Linus for mainline.
I've asked Linus to drop all 238 patches. I'll be resending them minus
the offending
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:14:55 -0400 Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Balbir,
Andrew included the memrlimit controller in his latest set of patches
to Linus for mainline.
I've asked Linus to drop all 238 patches. I'll be resending them minus
the offending
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote:
So I think we'd be complicating some of the vm paths in mainline with
a feature that isn't likely to get a lot of real use.
What do you (and others on the containers list) think? Should we ask
Andrew/Linus to hold off on this for
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Different topic, but one day I ought to get around to saying again
how absurd I think a swap controller; whereas a mem+swap controller
makes plenty of sense. I think Rik and others said the same.)
Agreed that a swap
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are applications that can/need to handle overcommit, just that we are
not
aware of them fully. Immediately after our meeting, I was pointed to
Paul Menage wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are applications that can/need to handle overcommit, just that we are
not
aware of them fully. Immediately after our meeting, I was pointed to
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Different topic, but one day I ought to get around to saying again
how absurd I think a swap controller; whereas a mem+swap controller
makes plenty of sense. I think Rik and
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
I'll try and recreate the problem and fix it. If
memrlimit_cgroup_uncharge_as()
created the problem, it's most likely related to mm-owner not being correct
and
we are dereferencing the wrong memory.
Thanks for the bug report, I'll look further.
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
I'll try and recreate the problem and fix it. If
memrlimit_cgroup_uncharge_as()
created the problem, it's most likely related to mm-owner not being correct
and
we are dereferencing the wrong memory.
Thanks for the bug report,
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Different topic, but one day I ought to get around to saying again
how absurd I think a swap controller; whereas a mem+swap controller
makes plenty of sense. I
30 matches
Mail list logo
