linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@valinux.co.jp>,
	lizf@cn.fujitsu.com,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention (v6)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:58:30 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <969730ee419be9fbe4aca3ec3249650e.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090316113853.GA16897@balbir.in.ibm.com>

Balbir Singh wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-16
> 20:10:41]:
>> >> At least, this check will be necessary in v7, I think.
>> >> shrink_slab() should be called.
>> >
>> > Why do you think so? So here is the design
>> >
>> > 1. If a cgroup was using over its soft limit, we believe that this
>> >    cgroup created overall memory contention and caused the page
>> >    reclaimer to get activated.
>> This assumption is wrong, see below.
>>
>> >    If we can solve the situation by
>> >    reclaiming from this cgroup, why do we need to invoke shrink_slab?
>> >
>> No,
>> IIUC, in big server, inode, dentry cache etc....can occupy Gigabytes
>> of memory even if 99% of them are not used.
>>
>> By shrink_slab(), we can reclaim unused but cached slabs and make
>> the kernel more healthy.
>>
>
> But that is not the job of the soft limit reclaimer.. Yes if no groups
> are over their soft limit, the regular action will take place.
>
Oh, yes, it's not job of memcg but it's job of memory management.


>>
>> > If the concern is that we are not following the traditional reclaim,
>> > soft limit reclaim can be followed by unconditional reclaim, but I
>> > believe this is not necessary. Remember, we wake up kswapd that will
>> > call shrink_slab if needed.
>> kswapd doesn't call shrink_slab() when zone->free is enough.
>> (when direct recail did good jobs.)
>>
>
> If zone->free is high why do we need shrink_slab()? The other way
> of asking it is, why does the soft limit reclaimer need to call
> shrink_slab(), when its job is to reclaim memory from cgroups above
> their soft limits.
>
Why do you consider that softlimit is called more than necessary
if shrink_slab() is never called ?

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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-03-16 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-14 17:30 [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v6) Balbir Singh
2009-03-14 17:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] Memory controller soft limit documentation (v6) Balbir Singh
2009-03-14 17:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v6) Balbir Singh
2009-03-14 17:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] Memory controller soft limit organize cgroups (v6) Balbir Singh
2009-03-16  0:21   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-16  8:47     ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-16  8:57       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-14 17:31 ` [PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention (v6) Balbir Singh
2009-03-16  0:52   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-16  8:35     ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-16  8:49       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-16  9:03         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-16  9:10           ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-16 11:10             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-16 11:38               ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-16 11:58                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2009-03-16 12:19                   ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-17  3:47                     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-17  4:40                       ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-17  4:47                         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-17  4:58                           ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-17  5:17                             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-17  5:55                               ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-17  6:00                                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-17  6:22                                   ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-17  6:30                                     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-17  6:59                                       ` Balbir Singh
2009-03-18  0:07       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-03-18  4:14         ` Balbir Singh

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=969730ee419be9fbe4aca3ec3249650e.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=yamamoto@valinux.co.jp \
    /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