Messages in this thread | | | From | Greg Thelen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:42:45 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, Apr 28 2014, Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 28.04.2014, 16:27, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.cz>: >> The series is based on top of the current mmotm tree. Once the series >> gets accepted I will post a patch which will mark the soft limit as >> deprecated with a note that it will be eventually dropped. Let me know >> if you would prefer to have such a patch a part of the series. >> >> Thoughts? > > > Looks good to me. > > The only question is: are there any ideas how the hierarchy support > will be used in this case in practice? > Will someone set low limit for non-leaf cgroups? Why? > > Thanks, > Roman
I imagine that a hosting service may want to give X MB to a top level memcg (/a) with sub-jobs (/a/b, /a/c) which may(not) have their own low-limits.
Examples:
case_1) only set low limit on /a. /a/b and /a/c may overcommit /a's memory (b.limit_in_bytes + c.limit_in_bytes > a.limit_in_bytes).
case_2) low limits on all memcg. But not overcommitting low_limits (b.low_limit_in_in_bytes + c.low_limit_in_in_bytes <= a.low_limit_in_in_bytes).
| |