On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:18:01 -0700 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kamezawa-San, I am not dead against it, but I would provide a knob/control > point > for system administrator to decide if movement is important for applications, > then let them do so (like force_empty). > make sense. > > Anyway what's next for me is > > 1. fix current discussion to remove page->page_cgroup pointer. > > 2. reduce locks. > > Are you planning on reposting these. I've been trying other approaches at my > end > I'll post in next Monday. It's obvious that I should do more tests/fixes... About performance, I'll give it up at some reasonable point. > 1. Use radix tree per-node per-zone > 2. Use radix trees only for 32 bit systems > 3. Depend on CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORY_PRESENT and build a sparse data structure and > use pre-allocation > > I've posted (1) and I'll take a look at your patches as well > My patch has (many) bugs. Severals are fixed but there will be still ;) SwapCache beats me again because it easily reuse uncharged pages... BTW why do you like radix-tree ? It's not very good for our purpose. FLATMEM support for small system will be easy work. > > 3. support swap and swap-cache. > > > > I think algorithm for (1), (2) is now getting smart. > > > > Yes, it is getting better > Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
