Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy

[kamezawa . hiroyu]

----- Original Message -----
way, breaks limit semantics.
>>>
>> Not easy to use in my point of view. Can we use 'share' in proper way 
>> on no-swap machine ?
>> 
>
>Not sure I understand your question. Share represents the share of available
>resources.
>

If no swap, you cannot reclaim anonymous pages and shared memory.
Then, the kernel has to abandon any kinds of auto-balancing somewhere.
(just an example. Things will be more complicated when we consinder
 mlocked pages and swap-resource-controller.)


>> yield() after callback() means that res_counter's state will be
>> far different from the state after callback.
>> So, we have to yield before call back and check res_coutner sooner.
>> 
>
>But does yield() get us any guarantees of seeing the state change?
>
Hmm, myabe my explanation is bad.

in following sequence
   1.callback()
   2.yield()
   3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 1->3 is big.

in following
   1.yield()
   2.callback()
   3.check usage again
Elapsed time between 2->3 is small.

There is an option to implement "changing limit grarually"

Thanks,
-Kame









--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/