From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Proactive Memory Reclaim
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:08:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8588314f167c9525e134ade91afdbebcd9e62eb1.camel@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod4V+56pZbPkFDYO3+60Xr0_ZjiSgrfJKs_=Bd4AjdvFzA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]
On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 08:30 -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Topic: Proactive Memory Reclaim
>
> Motivation/Problem: Memory overcommit is most commonly used technique
> to reduce the cost of memory by large infrastructure owners. However
> memory overcommit can adversely impact the performance of latency
> sensitive applications by triggering direct memory reclaim. Direct
> reclaim is unpredictable and disastrous for latency sensitive
> applications.
This sounds similar to a project Johannes has
been working on, except he is not tracking which
memory is idle at all, but only the pressure on
each cgroup, through the PSI interface:
https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/psi/docs/overview
Discussing the pros and cons, and experiences with
both approaches seems like a useful topic. I'll add
it to the agenda.
--
All Rights Reversed.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 15:30 Shakeel Butt
2019-04-23 15:58 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-23 16:33 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-04-23 16:49 ` Yang Shi
2019-04-23 17:12 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-04-23 18:26 ` Yang Shi
2019-04-23 16:08 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2019-04-23 17:04 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-04-23 17:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-23 17:34 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-23 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-24 16:28 ` Christopher Lameter
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=8588314f167c9525e134ade91afdbebcd9e62eb1.camel@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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