[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e675c63a-73ae-fc17-32e3-7560b91d229d@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:05:52 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
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 10:20 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:26 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> 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.
>
> Yes, your expectation is correct. As long as PMEM is a NUMA node, it
> is treated as regular memory by memcg. But, I don't think memcg limit
> reclaim should do migration since limit reclaim is used to reduce
> memory usage, but migration doesn't reduce usage, it just moves memory
> from one node to the other.
>
> In my implementation, I just skip migration for memcg limit reclaim,
> please see: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1560468577-101178-7-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com/
Ahh, got it. That does make sense. I might have to steal your
implementation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists