lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes
From
Date


On 01/12/2018 03:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-01-18 00:59:38, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 01/11/2018 07:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> I do not think so. Consider that this reclaim races with other
>>> reclaimers. Now you are reclaiming a large chunk so you might end up
>>> reclaiming more than necessary. SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would reduce the over
>>> reclaim to be negligible.
>>>
>>
>> I did consider this. And I think, I already explained that sort of race in previous email.
>> Whether "Task B" is really a task in cgroup or it's actually a bunch of reclaimers,
>> doesn't matter. That doesn't change anything.
>
> I would _really_ prefer two patches here. The first one removing the
> hard coded reclaim count. That thing is just dubious at best. If you
> _really_ think that the higher reclaim target is meaningfull then make
> it a separate patch. I am not conviced but I will not nack it it either.
> But it will make our life much easier if my over reclaim concern is
> right and we will need to revert it. Conceptually those two changes are
> independent anywa.
>

Ok, fair point. But what about livelock than? Don't you think that we should
go back to something like in V1 patch to prevent it?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-15 13:31    [W:0.114 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site