From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx202.postini.com [74.125.245.202]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60EFA6B005D for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dadi14 with SMTP id i14so237608dad.14 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:07:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <502BBC35.809@parallels.com> References: <1344517279-30646-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1344517279-30646-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120814162144.GC6905@dhcp22.suse.cz> <502B6D03.1080804@parallels.com> <20120815123931.GF23985@dhcp22.suse.cz> <000001392ac15404-43a3fd2c-a6d3-4985-b173-74bb586ad47c-000000@email.amazonses.com> <502BBC35.809@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:07:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure From: Ying Han Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Christoph Lameter , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 08/15/2012 06:47 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>>> That is not what the kernel does, in general. We assume that if he wants >>>> that memory and we can serve it, we should. Also, not all kernel memory >>>> is unreclaimable. We can shrink the slabs, for instance. Ying Han >>>> claims she has patches for that already... >>> >>> Are those patches somewhere around? >> >> You can already shrink the reclaimable slabs (dentries / inodes) via >> calls to the subsystem specific shrinkers. Did Ying Han do anything to >> go beyond that? >> > That is not enough for us. > We would like to make sure that the objects being discarded belong to > the memcg which is under pressure. We don't need to be perfect here, and > an occasional slip is totally fine. But if in general, shrinking from > memcg A will mostly wipe out objects from memcg B, we harmed the system > in return for nothing good. Correct. For example, we have per-superblock shrinker today for vfs caches. That is not enough since we need to isolate the dentry caches per-memcg basis. --Ying > > -- > 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 -- 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