Re: [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v2)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>]

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > > ------------- cut ----------------
> > > The task of limiting a container to 4.5GB of memory bottles down to the
> > > question: what to do when the container starts to use more than assigned
> > > 4.5GB of memory?
> > >
> > > At this moment there are only 3 viable alternatives.
> > >
> > > A) Have separate memory management for each container,
> > >   with separate buddy allocator, lru lists, page replacement mechanism.
> > >   That implies a considerable overhead, and the main challenge there
> > >   is sharing of pages between these separate memory managers.
> > >
> > > B) Return errors on extension of mappings, but not on page faults, where
> > >   memory is actually consumed.
> > >   In this case it makes sense to take into account not only the size 
> > > of used
> > >   memory, but the size of created mappings as well.
> > >   This is approximately what "privvmpages" accounting/limiting 
> > > provides in
> > >   UBC.
> > >
> > > C) Rely on OOM killer.
> > >   This is a fall-back method in UBC, for the case "privvmpages" limits
> > >   still leave the possibility to overload the system.
> >
> >
> > D) Virtual scan of mm's in the over-limit container
> >
> > E) Modify existing physical scanner to be able to skip pages which
> >    belong to not-over-limit containers.
> >
> > F) Something else ;)
> We fully agree that other possible algorithms can and should exist.
> My idea only is that any of them would need accounting anyway
> (which is the most part of beancounters).
> Throtling, modified scanners etc. can be implemented as a separate
> BC parameters. Thus, an administrator will be able to select
> which policy should be applied to the container which is near its limit.
>
> So the patches I'm trying to send are a step-by-step accounting of all
> the resources and their simple limitations. More comprehensive limitation
> policy will be built on top of it later.

One of the issues I see is that bean counters are not very flexible. Tasks 
cannot change bean counters dynamically after fork()/exec() that is - can they?


> BTW, UBC page beancounters allow to distinguish pages used by only one
> container and pages which are shared. So scanner can try to reclaim
> container private pages first, thus not influencing other containers.

But can you select the specific container for which we intend to scan pages?

> Thanks,
> Kirill

--
	Thanks,
	Balbir Singh,
	Linux Technology Center,
	IBM Software Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/