From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751807AbWHUCme (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:42:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751809AbWHUCme (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:42:34 -0400 Received: from sv1.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.2]:13546 "EHLO sv1.valinux.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751807AbWHUCmd (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:42:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) From: Magnus Damm To: rohitseth@google.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kirill Korotaev , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Alan Cox , hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Pavel Emelianov , devel@openvz.org, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <1155923946.23242.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> 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> <1155923946.23242.21.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:42:58 +0900 Message-Id: <1156128178.21411.36.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 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 10:59 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote: > 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... Yeah, moving things around: The pzone memory resource controller introduces dynamically sized zones if I remember correctly. http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net/3133911.html / magnus