From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm: workingset: make shadow node shrinker memcg aware
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:43:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160208204311.GA23389@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160208142835.GB13379@esperanza>
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:28:35PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:23:53AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > It's true that both the shrinking of the active list and subsequent
> > activations to regrow it will reduce the number of actionable
> > refaults, and so it wouldn't be unreasonable to also shrink shadow
> > nodes when the active list shrinks.
> >
> > However, I think these are too many assumptions to encode in the
> > shrinker, because it is only meant to prevent a worst-case explosion
> > of radix tree nodes. I'd prefer it to be dumb and conservative.
> >
> > Could we instead go with the current usage of the memcg? Whether
> > reclaim happens globally or due to the memory limit, the usage at the
> > time of reclaim gives a good idea of the memory is available to the
> > group. But it's making less assumptions about the internal composition
> > of the memcg's memory, and the consequences associated with that.
>
> But that would likely result in wasting a considerable chunk of memory
> for stale shadow nodes in case file caches constitute only a small part
> of memcg memory consumption, which isn't good IMHO.
Hm, that's probably true. But I think it's a separate patch at this
point - going from total memory to the cache portion for overhead
reasons - that shouldn't be conflated with the memcg awareness patch.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-08 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-07 17:27 [PATCH 0/5] " Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-07 17:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: memcontrol: enable kmem accounting for all cgroups in the legacy hierarchy Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 5:46 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-02-07 17:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: pass root_mem_cgroup instead of NULL to memcg aware shrinker Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 5:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-02-07 17:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: memcontrol: zap memcg_kmem_online helper Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 5:48 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-02-07 17:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] radix-tree: account radix_tree_node to memory cgroup Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 6:01 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-02-07 17:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: workingset: make shadow node shrinker memcg aware Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 6:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-02-08 14:28 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-02-08 20:43 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
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=20160208204311.GA23389@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov@virtuozzo.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