Re: [PATCH][RFC] memory.min_usage again

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:32:15 -0700
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > hi,
> > 
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> here's a patch to implement memory.min_usage,
> >> which controls the minimum memory usage for a cgroup.
> >>
> >> it works similarly to mlock;
> >> global memory reclamation doesn't reclaim memory from
> >> cgroups whose memory usage is below the value.
> >> setting it too high is a dangerous operation.
> >>
> 
> Looking through the code I am a little worried, what if every cgroup is below
> minimum value and the system is under memory pressure, do we OOM, while we could
> have easily reclaimed?
> 
> I would prefer to see some heuristics around such a feature, mostly around the
> priority that do_try_to_free_pages() to determine how desperate we are for
> reclaiming memory.
> 
Taking "priority" of memory reclaim path into account is good.

==
static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
                        struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
                        int priority, int file)
==
How about ignore min_usage if "priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2" ?


Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>