From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
vdavydov@parallels.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] memcg: punt high overage reclaim to return-to-userland path
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:22:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150915162253.GI2905@mtj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150915161218.GA12032@cmpxchg.org>
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:12:18PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> But they have been failing indefinitely forever once you hit the hard
> limit in the past. There was never an async reclaim provision there.
>
> I can definitely see that the unconstrained high limit breaching needs
> to be fixed one way or another, I just don't quite understand why you
> chose to go for new semantics. Is there a new or a specific usecase
> you had in mind when you chose deferred reclaim over simply failing?
Hmmm... so if we just fail, it breaks the assumptions that slab/slub
is making and while they might not fail outright would behave in an
undesirable way. It's just that we didn't notice that before with
limit_on_bytes and at least on the v2 interface the distinction
between high and max makes the problem easy to deal with from high
enforcement.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-15 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-13 18:59 [PATCH 1/2] memcg: flatten task_struct->memcg_oom Tejun Heo
2015-09-13 19:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] memcg: punt high overage reclaim to return-to-userland path Tejun Heo
2015-09-15 7:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-09-15 15:53 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-15 16:12 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-09-15 16:22 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2015-09-15 16:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-09-15 7:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] memcg: flatten task_struct->memcg_oom Johannes Weiner
2015-09-20 14:45 ` Sasha Levin
2015-09-21 20:01 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-30 18:54 ` Tejun Heo
2015-11-25 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-25 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-25 15:31 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2015-11-25 17:34 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2015-11-25 17:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-11 16:25 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-15 19:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-30 9:23 ` [PATCH v4.4-rc7] sched: isolate task_struct bitfields according to synchronization domains Tejun Heo
2015-12-30 20:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-12-30 20:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-12-30 20:41 ` Tejun Heo
2015-12-30 20:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-01-01 2:56 ` [PATCH v4.4-rc7] sched: move sched lock synchronized bitfields in task_struct into ->atomic_flags Tejun Heo
2016-01-06 13:44 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150915162253.GI2905@mtj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox