Hi Chandra,
Thanks for info, please see below

On 11/22/05, Chandra Seetharaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:02 -0500, kai unc wrote:
> Chandra,
>
> I'm interested in ckrm and recently testing mem_ctlr_0624_05 and e18
> on 2.6.12.
>
> On the design document, it says:
>
> - If the class that the current task belong to is over 'fail_over' %
> of its
>   'limit', allocation of page(s) fail. Otherwise, the page allocation
> will
>   proceed as before.
>
> "allocation of page(s)", is that mean allocation of new memory by a
> process (such as through malloc) or
> accessing a paged allocated but  not in physical memory ?

Allocation on new physical memory pages will fail. Accessing pages not
in physical memory will not.


Just for my education ...

In case of malloc, it seems Virtual memory is allocated immediately, ( malloc return), but RSS part does
not increase. The RSS will increase after same memory is first time written to.   When are  the new physical
memory pages created in this case? malloc or the first time write to?  

Another case, if a page was swapped from physical memory to swapspace,  later, it is about to be
swapped back for access, however, the task is over its failover. Is this a new physical memory
pages allocation? 

And third case, if something like some_lib.so is paged out from memory, and because there is a copy of
some_lib.so in filesystem,  there isn't a copy in physical memory and swap space. Later, when the
some_lib.so is pagein to physical memory, is this a new physical memory pages allocation ?

Actually, I try to understand when might  the page allocation be fail, with mainline kernel, even the physical
memory is not enough, as long as there is SWAP space, there will not be access issues to memory, right ?
will ckrm behave same ?

 
Hope this clarifies.

BTW, we are now focusing only on f-series. Testing functionality in f-
series may be a good idea. (Realized that memory controller is not
uploaded. Just did it now).


Thanks I will get new version and test it.

>
> Thanks for your clarification.
>
> Best Regards,
> Kai
>
>
>
>
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Reply via email to