From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:49:21 +0900 From: Daisuke Nishimura Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 0/2] misc patches for memory cgroup hierarchy Message-Id: <20081128214921.86c30347.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20081128194938.508a3b22.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20081128180252.b7a73c86.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20081128194938.508a3b22.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Li Zefan , Paul Menage , d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp, Daisuke Nishimura List-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:49:38 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:02:52 +0900 > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > I'm writing some patches for memory cgroup hierarchy. > > > > I think KAMEZAWA-san's cgroup-id patches are the most important pathes now, > > but I post these patches as RFC before going further. > > > Don't wait me ;) I'll rebase mine. > I see :) > > > Patch descriptions: > > - [1/2] take account of memsw > > mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim checks only mem->res now. > > It should also check mem->memsw when do_swap_account. > > - [2/2] avoid oom > > In previous implementation, mem_cgroup_try_charge checked the return > > value of mem_cgroup_try_to_free_pages, and just retried if some pages > > had been reclaimed. > > But now, try_charge(and mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim called from it) > > only checks whether the usage is less than the limit. > > I see oom easily in some tests which didn't cause oom before. > > > > Both patches are for memory-cgroup-hierarchical-reclaim-v4 patch series. > > > > My current plan for memory cgroup hierarchy: > > - If hierarchy is enabled, limit of child should not exceed that of parent. > limit of a child or > limit of sum of children ? > I'm sorry for my poor explanation. I meant *max* of limits of children. I think setting limit like group A (limit=1G) group A0 (limit=500M) group A1 (limit=800M) is not wrong itself. Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. > > - Change other calls for mem_cgroup_try_to_free_page() to > > mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim() if possible. > > > maybe makes sense. > > 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: email@kvack.org > -- 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: email@kvack.org