|From:||Rik van Riel <riel-AT-redhat.com>|
|To:||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|Subject:||Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches|
|Date:||Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:29:58 -0500|
|Cc:||Mel Gorman <mel-AT-skynet.ie>, npiggin-AT-suse.de, clameter-AT-engr.sgi.com, mingo-AT-elte.hu, jschopp-AT-austin.ibm.com, arjan-AT-infradead.org, torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org, mbligh-AT-mbligh.org, linux-mm-AT-kvack.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org|
Andrew Morton wrote: > And I'd judge that per-container RSS limits are of considerably more value > than antifrag (in fact per-container RSS might be a superset of antifrag, > in the sense that per-container RSS and containers could be abused to fix > the i-cant-get-any-hugepages problem, dunno). The RSS bits really worry me, since it looks like they could exacerbate the scalability problems that we are already running into on very large memory systems. Linux is *not* happy on 256GB systems. Even on some 32GB systems the swappiness setting *needs* to be tweaked before Linux will even run in a reasonable way. Pageout scanning needs to be more efficient, not less. The RSS bits are worrysome... -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic.
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds