Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller

Rohit Seth wrote:

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:43 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:31 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:

I think it is not a problem for OpenVZ because there is not that much
of
sharing going between containers as you mentioned (btw, this least
amount of sharing is a very good thing).  Though I'm not sure if one
has
to go to the extent of doing fractions with memory accounting.  If the
containers are set up in such a way that there is some sharing across
containers then it is okay to be unfair and charge one of those

containers for the specific resource completely.


Right, and if you do reclaim against containers which are over their
limits, the containers being unfairly charged will tend to get hit
first.  But, once this happens, I would hope that the ownership of those
shared pages should settle out among all of the users.



I think there is lot of simplicity and value add by charging one
container (even unfairly) for one resource completely.  This puts the
onus on system admin to set up the containers appropriately.


It also saves you from maintaining huge lists against each page.

Worse case, you want to bill everyone who opens that address_space
equally. But the semantics on exit still suck.

What was Alan's quote again? "unfair, unreliable, inefficient ...
pick at least one out of the three". or something like that.

M.
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- memory resource accounting (was Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller)
  - From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

References:
- [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Martin Bligh <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
  - From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [patch] Crash on evdev disconnect.
Next by Date: Re: 2.6.18-rc3-mm1: O= builds broken
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller
Next by thread: memory resource accounting (was Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]