[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70731276-ca8c-afa9-aca2-1ef210d4ac01@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:51:10 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Migrate Pages in lieu of discard
On 10/17/19 9:58 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> My expectation (and I haven't confirmed this) is that the any memory use
>> is accounted to the owning cgroup, whether it is DRAM or PMEM. memcg
>> limit reclaim and global reclaim both end up doing migrations and
>> neither should have a net effect on the counters.
>>
> Hmm I didn't see the memcg charge migration in the code on demotion.
> So, in the code [patch 3] the counters are being decremented as DRAM
> is freed but not incremented for PMEM.
I had assumed that the migration code was doing this for me. I'll go
make sure either way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists