[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:34:40 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below
usage
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
>
> To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> goes after the delta.
I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
implementation significantly.
Since, in contrast to memory.max, memory.high definition allows cgroup
to breach it, I believe it would be better if we spawned an asynchronous
reclaim work from the kernel on write to memory.high instead of doing
this synchronously. I guess we could reuse mem_cgroup->high_work for
that.
Thanks,
Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists