From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: schedule high reclaim for remote memcgs on high_work
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:24:18 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod6sx6tA2EvnXZ_h=qZu6xtcL14uSMyp-gqxedy8T0L6qg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190108145942.GZ31793@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:59 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed 02-01-19 17:56:38, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > If a memcg is over high limit, memory reclaim is scheduled to run on
> > return-to-userland. However it is assumed that the memcg is the current
> > process's memcg. With remote memcg charging for kmem or swapping in a
> > page charged to remote memcg, current process can trigger reclaim on
> > remote memcg. So, schduling reclaim on return-to-userland for remote
> > memcgs will ignore the high reclaim altogether. So, punt the high
> > reclaim of remote memcgs to high_work.
>
> Have you seen this happening in real life workloads?
No, just during code review.
> And is this offloading what we really want to do?
That's the question I am brainstorming nowadays. More generally how
memcg-oom-kill should work in the remote memcg charging case.
> I mean it is clearly the current
> task that has triggered the remote charge so why should we offload that
> work to a system? Is there any reason we cannot reclaim on the remote
> memcg from the return-to-userland path?
>
The only reason I did this was the code was much simpler but I see
that the current is charging the given memcg and maybe even
reclaiming, so, why not do the high reclaim as well. I will update the
patch.
thanks,
Shakeel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-08 17:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-03 1:56 Shakeel Butt
2019-01-03 1:56 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-08 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-08 17:24 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2019-01-08 17:24 ` Shakeel Butt
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='CALvZod6sx6tA2EvnXZ_h=qZu6xtcL14uSMyp-gqxedy8T0L6qg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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