lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes
On Mon 15-01-18 15:30:59, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
>
> 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?

I am not sure what do you mean by the livelock here.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-15 14:28    [W:0.116 / U:5.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site