From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751449AbWHRSAl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:00:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751452AbWHRSAl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:00:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:1271 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751449AbWHRSAk (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:00:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=o694lq2V+3prXdIZANp6dIYVwqfXdgIdUXDgMlsh0+0gGnPHd+Px2Rqpvzj8u5npM Lnl9q4/vGuhG/oDFG0pJg== Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Andrew Morton Cc: Dave Hansen , Andrey Savochkin , Kirill Korotaev , Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , devel@openvz.org, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <20060818094248.cdca152d.akpm@osdl.org> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C3F.3010509@sw.ru> <1155752277.22595.70.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155755069.24077.392.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155756170.22595.109.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E45D6A.8000003@sw.ru> <20060817084033.f199d4c7.akpm@osdl.org> <20060818120809.B11407@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <1155912348.9274.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818094248.cdca152d.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:59:06 -0700 Message-Id: <1155923946.23242.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 09:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:45:48 -0700 > Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:08 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Hold on here for just a sec... > > > > It is quite possible to do memory management aimed at one container > > while that container's memory still participates in the main VM. > > > > There is overhead here, as the LRU scanning mechanisms get less > > efficient, but I'd rather pay a penalty at LRU scanning time than divide > > up the VM, or coarsely start failing allocations. > > > > I have this mad idea that you can divide a 128GB machine up into 256 fake > NUMA nodes, then you use each "node" as a 512MB unit of memory allocation. > So that 4.5GB job would be placed within an exclusive cpuset which has nine > "mems" (what are these called?) and voila: the job has a hard 4.5GB limit, > no kernel changes needed. > Sounds like an interesting idea. Will have to depend on something like memory hot-plug to get the things move around... -rohit > Unfortunately this is not testable because numa=fake=256 doesn't come even > vaguely close to working. Am trying to get that fixed.