Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:51:11 +0530
> Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I was hopeful of getting the bare minimal infrastructure for memory
>> control in mainline, so that review is easy and additional changes
>> can be well reviewed as well.
>
> I am not yet
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:51:11 +0530
Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was hopeful of getting the bare minimal infrastructure for memory
control in mainline, so that review is easy and additional changes
can be well reviewed as well.
I am not yet convinced that
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:51:11 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was hopeful of getting the bare minimal infrastructure for memory
> control in mainline, so that review is easy and additional changes
> can be well reviewed as well.
I am not yet convinced that the way the memory
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:51:11 +0530
Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was hopeful of getting the bare minimal infrastructure for memory
control in mainline, so that review is easy and additional changes
can be well reviewed as well.
I am not yet convinced that the way the memory
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> That's where it should happen, yes; but my point is that it very
>>> often does not. Because the swap cache page (read in as part of
>>> the readaround cluster of some other cgroup, or in swapoff by some
>>>
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > That's where it should happen, yes; but my point is that it very
> > often does not. Because the swap cache page (read in as part of
> > the readaround cluster of some other cgroup, or in swapoff by some
> > other cgroup) is
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
That's where it should happen, yes; but my point is that it very
often does not. Because the swap cache page (read in as part of
the readaround cluster of some other cgroup, or in swapoff by some
other cgroup) is already
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
That's where it should happen, yes; but my point is that it very
often does not. Because the swap cache page (read in as part of
the readaround cluster of some other cgroup, or in swapoff by some
other cgroup)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> Well, swap control is another subject. I guess for that you'll need
>>> to track which cgroup each swap page belongs to (rather more expensive
>>> than the current swap_map of unsigned shorts). And I doubt
On 10/2/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I accept that full swap control is something you're intending to add
> incrementally later; but the current state doesn't make sense to me.
One comment on swap - ideally it should be a separate subsystem from
the memory controller. That way
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Well, swap control is another subject. I guess for that you'll need
> > to track which cgroup each swap page belongs to (rather more expensive
> > than the current swap_map of unsigned shorts). And I doubt it'll be
> > swap
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
Well, swap control is another subject. I guess for that you'll need
to track which cgroup each swap page belongs to (rather more expensive
than the current swap_map of unsigned shorts). And I doubt it'll be
swap control as such
On 10/2/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accept that full swap control is something you're intending to add
incrementally later; but the current state doesn't make sense to me.
One comment on swap - ideally it should be a separate subsystem from
the memory controller. That way
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
Well, swap control is another subject. I guess for that you'll need
to track which cgroup each swap page belongs to (rather more expensive
than the current swap_map of unsigned shorts). And I doubt it'll be
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> Sorry, Balbir, I've failed to get back to you, still attending to
>>> priorities. Let me briefly summarize my issue with the mem controller:
>>> you've not yet given enough attention to swap.
>> I am open to
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Balbir, I've failed to get back to you, still attending to
> > priorities. Let me briefly summarize my issue with the mem controller:
> > you've not yet given enough attention to swap.
>
> I am open to suggestions and
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
>>> ...
>>> kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
>>>
>>> Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
>> I mostly agree with your
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
...
kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
I mostly agree with your decision. I am a
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
Sorry, Balbir, I've failed to get back to you, still attending to
priorities. Let me briefly summarize my issue with the mem controller:
you've not yet given enough attention to swap.
I am open to suggestions and ways and
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
Sorry, Balbir, I've failed to get back to you, still attending to
priorities. Let me briefly summarize my issue with the mem controller:
you've not yet given enough attention to swap.
I am open to suggestions
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
> > ...
> > kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
> >
> > Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
>
> I mostly agree with your decision. I am a
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
...
kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
I mostly agree with your decision. I am a little concerned
Andrew Morton wrote:
> memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
> memory-controller-resource-counters-v7.patch
> memory-controller-resource-counters-v7-fix.patch
> memory-controller-containers-setup-v7.patch
> memory-controller-accounting-setup-v7.patch
>
Andrew Morton wrote:
memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
memory-controller-resource-counters-v7.patch
memory-controller-resource-counters-v7-fix.patch
memory-controller-containers-setup-v7.patch
memory-controller-accounting-setup-v7.patch
memory-controller-memory-accounting-v7.patch
24 matches
Mail list logo
