[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200219113139.ee60838bc7eb35747eb330fa@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:31:39 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: asynchronous reclaim for memory.high
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 19:37:31 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed 19-02-20 13:12:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > We have received regression reports from users whose workloads moved
> > into containers and subsequently encountered new latencies. For some
> > users these were a nuisance, but for some it meant missing their SLA
> > response times. We tracked those delays down to cgroup limits, which
> > inject direct reclaim stalls into the workload where previously all
> > reclaim was handled my kswapd.
>
> I am curious why is this unexpected when the high limit is explicitly
> documented as a throttling mechanism.
Yes, this sounds like a feature-not-a-bug.
But what was the nature of these stalls? If they were "stuck in D
state waiting for something" then that's throttling. If they were
"unexpected bursts of in-kernel CPU activity" then I see a better case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists