On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 15:38 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (13/03/07 10:05), Dave Hansen didst pronounce:
> > How do we determine what is shared, and goes into the shared zones?
> 
> Assuming we had a means of creating a zone that was assigned to a container,
> a second zone for shared data between a set of containers.  For shared data,
> the time the pages are being allocated is at page fault time. At that point,
> the faulting VMA is known and you also know if it's MAP_SHARED or not.

Well, but MAP_SHARED does not necessarily mean shared outside of the
container, right?  Somebody wishing to get around resource limits could
just MAP_SHARED any data they wished to use, and get it into the shared
area before their initial use, right?

How do normal read/write()s fit into this?

> > There's a conflict between the resize granularity of the zones, and the
> > storage space their lookup consumes.  We'd want a container to have a
> > limited ability to fill up memory with stuff like the dcache, so we'd
> > appear to need to put the dentries inside the software zone.  But, that
> > gets us to our inability to evict arbitrary dentries. 
> 
> Stuff like shrinking dentry caches is already pretty course-grained.
> Last I looked, we couldn't even shrink within a specific node, let alone
> a zone or a specific dentry. This is a separate problem.

I shouldn't have used dentries as an example.  I'm just saying that if
we end up (or can end up with) with a whole ton of these software zones,
we might have troubles storing them.  I would imagine the issue would
come immediately from lack of page->flags to address lots of them.

> > After a while,
> > would containers tend to pin an otherwise empty zone into place?  We
> > could resize it, but what is the cost of keeping zones that can be
> > resized down to a small enough size that we don't mind keeping it there?
> > We could merge those "orphaned" zones back into the shared zone.
> 
> Merging "orphaned" zones back into the "main" zone would seem a sensible
> choice.

OK, but merging wouldn't be possible if they're not physically
contiguous.  I guess this could be worked around by just calling it a
shared zone, no matter where it is physically.

> > Were there any requirements about physical contiguity? 
> 
> For the lookup to software zone to be efficient, it would be easiest to have
> them as MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES contiguous. This would avoid having to break the
> existing assumptions in the buddy allocator about MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES
> always being in the same zone.

I was mostly wondering about zones spanning other zones.  We _do_
support this today, and it might make quite a bit more merging possible.

> > If we really do bind a set of processes strongly to a set of memory on a
> > set of nodes, then those really do become its home NUMA nodes.  If the
> > CPUs there get overloaded, running it elsewhere will continue to grab
> > pages from the home.  Would this basically keep us from ever being able
> > to move tasks around a NUMA system?
> 
> Moving the tasks around would not be easy. It would require a new zone
> to be created based on the new NUMA node and all the data migrated. hmm

I know we _try_ to avoid this these days, but I'm not sure how taking it
away as an option will affect anything.

-- Dave

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers