linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:30:25 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Andrew Brestic <abrestic@...gle.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan_stat"

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200
> > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200
> > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200
> > > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm confused. 
> > 
> > If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU,
> > 	(memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++
> > 	(memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ?
> > 
> > I think we can never get numbers.
> 
> Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external,
> since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal.
> 

hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef
is all external.

> On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the
> machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal.
> 
> I think the former may be more natural.
> 
> That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously.
> Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero.  If items differ
> between cgroups, that would suck a lot.

So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal.

How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ?
Should be counted into scan_internal ?

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/