[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: check mem cgroup over reclaimed
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Hillf Danton <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Ying Han <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Hillf Danton <> wrote:
>>> With soft limit available, what if nr_to_reclaim set to be the number of
>>> pages exceeding soft limit? With over reclaim abused, what are the targets
>>> of soft limit?
>> The nr_to_reclaim is set to SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX (32) for direct reclaim
>> and ULONG_MAX for background reclaim. Not sure we can set it, but it
>> is possible the res_counter_soft_limit_excess equal to that target
>> value. The current soft limit mechanism provides a clue of WHERE to
>> reclaim pages when there is memory pressure, it doesn't change the
>> reclaim target as it was before.
> Decrement in sc->nr_to_reclaim was tried in another patch, you already saw it.
>> Overreclaim a cgroup under its softlimit is bad, but we should be
>> careful not introducing side effect before providing the guarantee.
> Yes 8-)
>> Here, the should_continue_reclaim() has logic of freeing a bit more
>> order-0 pages for compaction. The logic got changed after this.
> Compaction is to increase the successful rate of THP allocation, and in turn
> to back up higher performance. In soft limit, performance guarantee is not
> extra request but treated with less care.
> Which one you prefer, compaction or guarantee?

The compaction is something we already supporting, while the softlimit
implementation is a new design. I would say that we need to guarantee
no regression introduced by any new code.


> Thanks
> Hillf

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-25 20:23    [W:0.046 / U:1.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site