On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 19:13 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > c) pointer to prototype code if poss
> >
> > Both the memory controllers are fully functional. We need to trim them
> > down.
> >
> > active/inactive list per class memory controller:
> > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ckrm/mem_rc-f0.4-2615-v2.tz?download
>
> Oh my gosh. That converts memory reclaim from per-zone LRU to
> per-CKRM-class LRU. If configured.
>
> This is huge. It means that we have basically two quite different versions
> of memory reclaim to test and maintain. This is a problem.
>
> (I hope that's the before-we-added-comments version of the patch btw).
>
> > pzone based memory controller:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ckrm-tech&m=113867467006531&w=2
>
> From a super-quick scan that looks saner. Is it effective? Is this the
> way you're planning on proceeding?
>
> This requirement is basically a glorified RLIMIT_RSS manager, isn't it?
> Just that it covers a group of mm's and not just the one mm?
>
> Do you attempt to manage just pagecache? So if class A tries to read 10GB
> from disk, does that get more aggressively reclaimed based on class A's
> resource limits?
>
> This all would have been more comfortable if done on top of the 2.4
> kernel's virtual scanner.
>
> (btw, using the term "class" to identify a group of tasks isn't very
> comfortable - it's an instance, not a class...)
>
>
> Worried.
The object of this infrastructure is to get a unified interface for
resource management, irrespective of the resource that is being managed.
As I mentioned in my earlier email, subsystem experts are the ones who
will finally decide what type resource controller they will accept. With
VM experts' direction and advice, i am positive that we will get an
excellent memory controller (as well as other controllers).
As you might have noticed, we have gone through major changes to come to
community's acceptance levels. We are now making use of all possible
features (kref, process event connector, configfs, module parameter,
kzalloc) in this infrastructure.
Having a CPU controller, two memory controllers, an I/O controller and a
numtasks controller proves that the infrastructure does handle major
resources nicely and is also capable of managing virtual resources.
Hope i reduced your worries (at least some :).
regards,
chandra
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> ckrm-tech mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
