[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613150653.GA30642@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:06:53 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Sangwoo Park <sangwoo2.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim
Hi Minchan,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> These day, there are many platforms available in the embedded market
> and sometime, they has more hints about workingset than kernel so
> they want to involve memory management more heavily like android's
> lowmemory killer and ashmem or user-daemon with lowmemory notifier.
>
> This patch adds add new method for userspace to manage memory
> efficiently via knob "/proc/<pid>/reclaim" so platform can reclaim
> any process anytime.
Cgroups are our canonical way to control system resources on a per
process or group-of-processes level. I don't like the idea of adding
ad-hoc interfaces for single-use cases like this.
For this particular case, you can already stick each app into its own
cgroup and use memory.force_empty to target-reclaim them.
Or better yet, set the soft limits / memory.low to guide physical
memory pressure, once it actually occurs, toward the least-important
apps? We usually prefer doing work on-demand rather than proactively.
The one-cgroup-per-app model would give Android much more control and
would also remove a *lot* of overhead during task switches, see this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/19/358
Powered by blists - more mailing lists