[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231001232730.GA11194@monkey>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 16:27:30 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...riel.com,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
shuah@...nel.org, yosryahmed@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb memcg accounting
On 09/27/23 14:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 01:21:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 26-09-23 12:49:47, Nhat Pham wrote:
>
> So that if you use 80% hugetlb, the other memory is forced to stay in
> the remaining 20%, or it OOMs; and that if you don't use hugetlb, the
> group is still allowed to use the full 100% of its host memory
> allowance, without requiring some outside agent continuously
> monitoring and adjusting the container limits.
Jumping in late here as I was traveling last week. In addition, I want
to state my limited cgroup knowledge up front.
I was thinking of your scenario above a little differently. Suppose a
group is up and running at almost 100% memory usage. However, the majority
of that memory is reclaimable. Now, someone wants to allocate a 2M hugetlb
page. There is not 2MB free, but we could easily reclaim 2MB to make room
for the hugetlb page. I may be missing something, but I do not see how that
is going to happen. It seems like we would really want that behavior.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists