lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v2)
    * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-02-17 13:20:39]:

    > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:52 +0900
    > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > 2. I don't like to change usual direct-memory-reclaim path. It will be obstacles
    > > > > for VM-maintaners to improve memory reclaim. memcg's LRU is designed for
    > > > > shrinking memory usage and not for avoiding memory shortage. IOW, it's slow routine
    > > > > for reclaiming memory for memory shortage.
    > > >
    > > > I don't think I agree here. Direct reclaim is the first indication of
    > > > shortage and if order 0 pages are short, memcg's above their soft
    > > > limit can be targetted first.
    > > >
    > > My "slow" means "the overhead seems to be big". The latency will increase.
    > >
    > > About 0-order
    > > In patch 4/4
    > > + did_some_progress = mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_mask);
    > > + /*
    > > should be
    > > if (!order)
    > > did_some_progress = mem....
    > above is wrong.
    >
    > if (!order && (gfp_mask & GFP_MOVABLE)) ....Hmm, but this is not correct.
    > I have no good idea to avoid unnecessary works.
    >
    > BTW, why don't you call soft_limit_reclaim from kswapd's path ?
    >

    I think it has to be both kswapd and pdflush path, I can consider that
    option as well. That needs more thought on the design.


    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-18 12:23    [W:0.022 / U:61.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site