From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC22828DF for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id n186so8343154wmn.1 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com. [74.125.82.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id di9si9847865wjc.18.2016.03.11.00.42.40 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l68so8535275wml.0 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:42:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:42:39 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage Message-ID: <20160311084238.GE27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1457643015-8828-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160311083440.GI1946@esperanza> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com On Fri 11-03-16 11:34:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next > > charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and > > not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can > > cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely. > > > > To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that > > goes after the delta. > > I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a > good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high > knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented > in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls > caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that > a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to > react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to > spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its > implementation significantly. Is the complication on the managing part really an issue though. Such a manager would have to spawn a process/thread to change the .max already. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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