On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:55 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 29-06-18 16:40:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> > > memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:55 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 29-06-18 16:40:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> > > memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much
On 29/06/2018 16:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I would also love to see a note how this memory is bound to the owner
>>> life time in the changelog. That would make the review much more easier.
>> --verbose for people that aren't well versed in linux mm, please...
> Well, if the memory accounted to
On 29/06/2018 16:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I would also love to see a note how this memory is bound to the owner
>>> life time in the changelog. That would make the review much more easier.
>> --verbose for people that aren't well versed in linux mm, please...
> Well, if the memory accounted to
On Fri 29-06-18 16:40:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> > memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much memory
> > to account to a specific process. Is this something
On Fri 29-06-18 16:40:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> > memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much memory
> > to account to a specific process. Is this something
On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much memory
> to account to a specific process. Is this something that we can do?
> We will probably need a new MM_KERNEL
On 29/06/2018 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not familiar wtih kvm to judge but if we are going to account this
> memory we will probably want to let oom_badness know how much memory
> to account to a specific process. Is this something that we can do?
> We will probably need a new MM_KERNEL
On Fri 29-06-18 07:02:24, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> The size of kvm's shadow page tables corresponds to the size of the
> guest virtual machines on the system. Large VMs can spend a significant
> amount of memory as shadow page tables which can not be left as system
> memory overhead. So, account
On Fri 29-06-18 07:02:24, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> The size of kvm's shadow page tables corresponds to the size of the
> guest virtual machines on the system. Large VMs can spend a significant
> amount of memory as shadow page tables which can not be left as system
> memory overhead. So, account
The size of kvm's shadow page tables corresponds to the size of the
guest virtual machines on the system. Large VMs can spend a significant
amount of memory as shadow page tables which can not be left as system
memory overhead. So, account shadow page tables to the kmemcg.
Signed-off-by: Shakeel
The size of kvm's shadow page tables corresponds to the size of the
guest virtual machines on the system. Large VMs can spend a significant
amount of memory as shadow page tables which can not be left as system
memory overhead. So, account shadow page tables to the kmemcg.
Signed-off-by: Shakeel
12 matches
Mail list logo
