From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2775CC433EF for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A34456B0071; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9E3466B0073; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:10:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8AA966B0074; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:10:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0037.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.37]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5CB6B0071 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB11A5BFF for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:10:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79281431376.18.718337C Received: from mail-qt1-f181.google.com (mail-qt1-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6EB18002D for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:10:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f181.google.com with SMTP id bp39so5551589qtb.6 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rZkrO50N8MIM5fdKHsVpbm2U8iuVkvk0CAUhdGmqqWM=; b=LEzCQ1BWpC5mhJuQigVniD6FG8W+FawIPFRfZn+Kc8wgPtrkzAdxNxjdF2z4sGF77R vx2tdr04eu9K+qltad/QTWCS+aJIjicWUybB4qRGdUGf2MFLsUJ26Wt2s/Yd3g/69drO nfmJa7B2HNNRWw5dUCx6PEQbxGEKpJEBmTZ+oYi4Mk4h7XqPLyFV36M4lrktps1MDGIM 7416CjhidMppBvW1QZARuGBCy9CPxN2gcZDERMFLwvRVPuByqnQ60bhEsGDqoBoYMpzf oYJTqoXCa3jnCaLnvzBLSEQ3zz+UytX3asngvJyWKFknxSwXSATB4MWAIynVxZeEhPvl u90Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rZkrO50N8MIM5fdKHsVpbm2U8iuVkvk0CAUhdGmqqWM=; b=CQq9EDcZbUV8fpt2OdiRBKxqU7Bdn6dGGF0JPc4Fofnq/iHVA5JnOhcYUyt3IvT89I cXNh9CUFPJ+llmngLvXaV23UIEAoCpVwRSV6NFGzgFQHBWvzxBeU6zSZg/Dxj27JBTWx tvV7zBeNk3qHqWFNqmqJGPQeU6TcBDgwryGCXQsvM1LGGtNe0ekHmFj6YPKf1xePdjqS uxuzXLRwkqbdrc4nCVD0KuEaTcBTL7HmHA/tvF7AUwxItLUHcIs16Mlj2fxh2S2JtIov YjdThy0nzaA8SKpXuOgYHBaVHVPyt6CxwqU849sx9O/MyFc/fGMtwc7U/BGKkB+s0TgQ w+pA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531le4hq0eSdyvlOqkKD4IKr9yC9C4RP78ZijX1J5Tx0G48ZrC1V 8N+OjCuA4rdKQLNFVe7LtV2++3Ct7wSjdn5z4deaZT6meqM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUejlrpTWbMbBFR3zw+m+FP9gNyj6Y72ty2YJAvfbhqETu1h/9BmrZCmXPz9/vloJ369+PEExnQzGdOMkkQPk= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e50:0:b0:2e2:17a8:2ab0 with SMTP id e16-20020ac84e50000000b002e217a82ab0mr7367671qtw.68.1648177847048; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:10:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Zhaoyang Huang Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:10:19 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Chris Down , "zhaoyang.huang" , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , ke wang , "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Stat-Signature: 4hxsxzbwpkmu5hx9x594hptqe4pw8t6f Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=LEzCQ1BW; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of huangzhaoyang@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AD6EB18002D X-HE-Tag: 1648177847-919617 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:23 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > It seems like what=E2=80=99s being proposed is an ability to express the = protection in % of the current usage rather than an absolute number. > It=E2=80=99s an equivalent for something like a memory (reclaim) priority= : e.g. a cgroup with 80% protection is _always_ reclaimed less aggressively= than one with a 20% protection. > > That said, I=E2=80=99m not a fan of this idea. > It might make sense in some reasonable range of usages, but if your workl= oad is simply leaking memory and growing indefinitely, protecting it seems = like a bad idea. And the first part can be easily achieved using an userspa= ce tool. > > Thanks! > > > On Mar 24, 2022, at 7:33 AM, Chris Down wrote: > > > > =EF=BB=BFI'm confused by the aims of this patch. We already have propor= tional reclaim for memory.min and memory.low, and memory.high is already "p= roportional" by its nature to drive memory back down behind the configured = threshold. > > > > Could you please be more clear about what you're trying to achieve and = in what way the existing proportional reclaim mechanisms are insufficient f= or you? ok, I think it could be fixable for memory leak issues. Please refer to my reply on Chris's comment for more explanation.