From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1EFB6B0082 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:22:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n1H4LvYs026280 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:21:58 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15E845DD7B for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:21:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3D045DD78 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:21:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F25F1DB8037 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:21:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079241DB803C for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:21:54 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:20:39 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v2) Message-Id: <20090217132039.3504cd3d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090217130352.4ba7f91c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090216110844.29795.17804.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090217090523.975bbec2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090217030526.GA20958@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090217130352.4ba7f91c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Bharata B Rao , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Dhaval Giani , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:52 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > 2. I don't like to change usual direct-memory-reclaim path. It will be obstacles > > > for VM-maintaners to improve memory reclaim. memcg's LRU is designed for > > > shrinking memory usage and not for avoiding memory shortage. IOW, it's slow routine > > > for reclaiming memory for memory shortage. > > > > I don't think I agree here. Direct reclaim is the first indication of > > shortage and if order 0 pages are short, memcg's above their soft > > limit can be targetted first. > > > My "slow" means "the overhead seems to be big". The latency will increase. > > About 0-order > In patch 4/4 > + did_some_progress = mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_mask); > + /* > should be > if (!order) > did_some_progress = mem.... above is wrong. if (!order && (gfp_mask & GFP_MOVABLE)) ....Hmm, but this is not correct. I have no good idea to avoid unnecessary works. BTW, why don't you call soft_limit_reclaim from kswapd's path ? -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