[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140611153410.GB17777@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:34:10 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit
reclaim
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 04:11:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I still think it'd be less useful than "high", but as there seem to be
> > use cases which can be served with that and especially as a part of a
> > consistent control scheme, I have no objection.
> >
> > "low" definitely requires a notification mechanism tho.
>
> Would vmpressure notification be sufficient? That one is in place for
> any memcg which is reclaimed.
Yeah, as long as it can reliably notify userland that the soft
guarantee has been breached, it'd be great as it means we'd have a
single mechanism to monitor both "low" and "high" while "min" and
"max" are oom based, which BTW needs more work but that's a separate
piece of work.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists