[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200818092737.GA148695@chrisdown.name>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 10:27:37 +0100
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory
control
peterz@...radead.org writes:
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of
>> physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in
>> a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim
>> memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough
>> to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup
>> to be around or below the "memory.high" limit.
>>
>> Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate
>> that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case,
>> the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing.
>
>Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we
>slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits.
We already do that since v5.4. I'm wondering whether Waiman's customer is just
running with a too-old kernel without 0e4b01df865 ("mm, memcg: throttle
allocators when failing reclaim over memory.high") backported.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists