[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel scanning/freeing to relieve cgroup memory pressure

What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you see this as a valid


On 02/04/2014 19:00, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing memcg maintainers and cgroup ML)
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:08:04PM +0100, Glyn Normington wrote:
>> Currently, a memory cgroup can hit its oom limit when pages could, in
>> principle, be reclaimed by the kernel except that the kernel does not
>> respond directly to cgroup-local memory pressure.
> So, ummm, it does.
>> A use case where this is important is running a moderately large Java
>> application in a memory cgroup in a PaaS environment where cost to the
>> user depends on the memory limit ([1]). Users need to tune the memory
>> limit to reduce their costs. During application initialisation large
>> numbers of JAR files are opened (read-only) and read while loading the
>> application code and its dependencies. This is reflected in a peak of
>> file cache usage which can push the memory cgroup memory usage
>> significantly higher than the value actually needed to run the application.
>> Possible approaches include (1) automatic response to cgroup-local
>> memory pressure in the kernel, and (2) a kernel API for reclaiming
>> memory from a cgroup which could be driven under oom notification (with
>> the oom killer disabled for the cgroup - it would be enabled if the
>> cgroup was still oom after calling the kernel to reclaim memory).
>> Clearly (1) is the preferred approach. The closest facility in the
>> kernel to (2) is to ask the kernel to free pagecache using `echo 1 >
>> /proc/sys/vms/drop_caches`, but that is too wide-ranging, especially in
>> a PaaS environment hosting multiple applications. A similar facility
>> could be provided for a cgroup via a cgroup pseudo-file
>> `memory.drop_caches`.
>> Other approaches include a mempressure cgroup ([2]) which would not be
>> suitable for PaaS applications. See [3] for Andrew Morton's response. A
>> related workaround ([4]) was included in the 3.6 kernel.
>> Related discussions:
>> [1]
>> [2] <>
>> [3] <>
>> [4] <>&
>> <>.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-14 15:01    [W:0.079 / U:2.452 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site