lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [17]   [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)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:10 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-02-17 13:03:52]:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:35:26 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to add any new big burden to kernel hackers of memory management,
> > they work hard to improve memory reclaim. This patch will change the behavior.
> >
>
> I don't think I agree, this approach suggests that before doing global
> reclaim, there are several groups that are using more than their
> share of memory, so it makes sense to reclaim from them first.
>

>
> > BTW, in typical bad case, several threads on cpus goes into memory recalim at once and
> > all thread will visit this memcg's soft-limit tree at once and soft-limit will
> > not work as desired anyway.
> > You can't avoid this problem at alloc_page() hot-path.
>
> Even if all threads go into soft-reclaim at once, the tree will become
> empty after a point and we will just return saying there are no more
> memcg's to reclaim from (we remove the memcg from the tree when
> reclaiming), then those threads will go into regular reclaim if there
> is still memory pressure.

Yes. the largest-excess group will be removed. So, it seems that it doesn't work
as designed. rbtree is considered as just a hint ? If so, rbtree seems to be
overkill.

just a question:
Assume memcg under hierarchy.
../group_A/ usage=1G, soft_limit=900M hierarchy=1
01/ usage=200M, soft_limit=100M
02/ usage=300M, soft_limit=200M
03/ usage=500M, soft_limit=300M <==== 200M over.
004/ usage=200M, soft_limit=100M
005/ usage=300M, soft_limit=200M

At memory shortage, group 03's memory will be reclaimed
- reclaim memory from 03, 03/004, 03/005

When 100M of group 03' memory is reclaimed, group_A 's memory is reclaimd at the
same time, implicitly. Doesn't this break your rb-tree ?

I recommend you that soft-limit can be only applied to the node which is top of
hierarchy.

> >
> > > > 3. After this patch, res_counter is no longer for general purpose res_counter...
> > > > It seems to have too many unnecessary accessories for general purpose.
> > >
> > > Why not? Soft limits are a feature of any controller. The return of
> > > highest ancestor might be the only policy we impose right now. But as
> > > new controllers start using res_counter, we can clearly add a policy
> > > callback.
> > >
> > I think you forget that memroy cgroups is an only controller in which the kernel
> > can reduce the usage of resource without any harmful to users.
> > soft-limit is nonsense for general resources, I think.
> >
>
> Really? Even for CPUs? soft-limit is a form of shares (please don't
> confuse with cpu.shares). Soft limits is used as a way of implementing
> work conserving controllers.
>

I don't think cpu needs this. It works under share and no hardlimit.

THanks,
-Kame




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-18 12:23    [W:0.265 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site