From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755519AbZCLFEs (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751204AbZCLFEj (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:39 -0400 Received: from e28smtp08.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.8]:40744 "EHLO e28smtp08.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750965AbZCLFEi (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:34:23 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] memcg softlimit (Another one) v4 Message-ID: <20090312050423.GI23583@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090312095247.bf338fe8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090312034647.GA23583@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090312133949.130b20ed.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090312133949.130b20ed.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-12 13:39:49]: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:16:47 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-12 09:52:47]: > > I've tested so far by > > > > Creating two cgroups and then > > > > a. Assigning limits of 1G and 2G and run memory allocation and touch > > test > softlimit ? > Yes > > b. Same as (a) with 1G and 1G > > c. Same as (a) with 0 and 1G > > d. Same as (a) with 0 and 0 > > > > More comments in induvidual patches. > > > Then, > 1. what's the number of active threads ? One for each process in the two groups > 2. what's the number of cpus ? 4 > 3. what's the numa configuration, if numa ? Fake NUMA with nodes = 4, I have DMA, DMA32 and NORMAL split across nodes. > 4. what's the zone configuration ? > 5. what's arch ? > 6. what's amount of total memory ? I have 4GB on x86-64 system (Quad Core) > 7. Do you find difference in behavior with and without softlimit ? Very much so.. I see the resources being shared as defined by soft limits. > 8. Do you tested *this* version ? > Not yet.. you just posted it. I am testing my v5, which I'll post soon. I am seeing very good results with v5. I'll test yours later today. > Thanks, > -Kame -- Balbir From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6479D6B003D for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2C54YdF021281 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:34:34 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2C54grs1732762 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:34:42 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2C54XF9001890 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:04:34 +1100 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:34:23 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] memcg softlimit (Another one) v4 Message-ID: <20090312050423.GI23583@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090312095247.bf338fe8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090312034647.GA23583@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090312133949.130b20ed.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090312133949.130b20ed.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-12 13:39:49]: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:16:47 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-12 09:52:47]: > > I've tested so far by > > > > Creating two cgroups and then > > > > a. Assigning limits of 1G and 2G and run memory allocation and touch > > test > softlimit ? > Yes > > b. Same as (a) with 1G and 1G > > c. Same as (a) with 0 and 1G > > d. Same as (a) with 0 and 0 > > > > More comments in induvidual patches. > > > Then, > 1. what's the number of active threads ? One for each process in the two groups > 2. what's the number of cpus ? 4 > 3. what's the numa configuration, if numa ? Fake NUMA with nodes = 4, I have DMA, DMA32 and NORMAL split across nodes. > 4. what's the zone configuration ? > 5. what's arch ? > 6. what's amount of total memory ? I have 4GB on x86-64 system (Quad Core) > 7. Do you find difference in behavior with and without softlimit ? Very much so.. I see the resources being shared as defined by soft limits. > 8. Do you tested *this* version ? > Not yet.. you just posted it. I am testing my v5, which I'll post soon. I am seeing very good results with v5. I'll test yours later today. > Thanks, > -Kame -- Balbir -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org