[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220324095157.GA16685@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:51:57 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: memcg: Do not count memory.low reclaim if it
does not happen
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:44:24PM -0700, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> Does it mean that in the following configuration:
> `parent .low=50M
> ` s1 .low=0M .current=50M
> ` s2 .low=0M .current=50M
> there will be no memory.events::low at all? (assuming the recursive thing is on)
True, no memory.events:low among siblings.
Number of memory.events:low in the parent depends on how much has to be
reclaimed (>50M means carving into parent's protection, hence it'll be
counted).
This is a quantitative change in the events reporting (point 1 of
RFCness), my understanding is that the potential events due to recursive
surplus protection carry no new information regarding configured
memory.low.
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists