Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan_stat"

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200
> > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200
> > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200
> > > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm confused. 
> > 
> > If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU,
> > 	(memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++
> > 	(memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ?
> > 
> > I think we can never get numbers.
> 
> Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external,
> since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal.
> 

hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef
is all external.

> On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the
> machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal.
> 
> I think the former may be more natural.
> 
> That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously.
> Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero.  If items differ
> between cgroups, that would suck a lot.

So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal.

How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ?
Should be counted into scan_internal ?

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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>