Paul Menage wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 6/22/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
>>> individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
>>> use case
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:05 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
>
>> Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
>> individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
>> use cases for pagecache_limit alone without RSS_limit li
On 6/22/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
use cases for pagecache_limit alone without RSS_limit like the case of
database application us
On 6/25/07, Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/22/07, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
> individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
> use cases for pagecache_limit alone
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:05 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
>
>> Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
>> individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
>> use cases for pagecache_limit alone without RSS_limit like
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:05 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> Merging both limits will eliminate the issue, however we would need
> individual limits for pagecache and RSS for better control. There are
> use cases for pagecache_limit alone without RSS_limit like the case of
> database appli
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:33 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
> Not quite sure on 2, from reading the pagecache controller, I got the
> impression that enforcing both limits got you into trouble. Merging the
> limits would rid us of that issue, no
Balbir Singh wrote:
[snip]
>> With the current dual list approach, something like that could be done
>> by treating the container lists as pure FIFO (and ignore the reference
>> bit and all that) and make container reclaim only unmap, not write out
>> pages.
>>
>> Then global reclaim will do the
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:33 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Having read the RSS and Pagecache controllers some things bothered me.
>>>
>>> - the duplication of much of the reclaim data (not code)
>>>and the size increase as a result thereof.
>>>
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:33 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Having read the RSS and Pagecache controllers some things bothered me.
> >
> > - the duplication of much of the reclaim data (not code)
> >and the size increase as a result thereof.
> >
>
> Are you referring
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Having read the RSS and Pagecache controllers some things bothered me.
>
> - the duplication of much of the reclaim data (not code)
>and the size increase as a result thereof.
>
Are you referring to the duplication due to the per container LRU list?
> - the clear d
Having read the RSS and Pagecache controllers some things bothered me.
- the duplication of much of the reclaim data (not code)
and the size increase as a result thereof.
- the clear distinction between mapped (RSS) and unmapped (pagecache)
limits. Linux doesn't impose individual limits
12 matches
Mail list logo
