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 C94B8C32771 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F135A8D0003; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E9B948D0002; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D15ED8D0003; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A018D0002 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:29:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFAC41850 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:29:27 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79816877574.05.94113D4 Received: from mail-pg1-f182.google.com (mail-pg1-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F871C0019 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f182.google.com with SMTP id bh13so4087809pgb.4 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc; bh=UMwZBhpqxvMN4MWwkHckLMAVG27kfXbnwXOCeD112cI=; b=GCXQ0jrSKwhxTdDFaLB9Yx0otU4yPi1wlSwQtWbV+ZH7O/f4QKRxXJTQenmXQDThwK qOzg+oLhbwQWO+mboLEBXF4mWTEdBiQjEth/eUYaDnlQHfA4oxAr+S6jlTmbfb+B4RBm MMfkAsBxGk04ZGAWr3GQUVXWvZbwjGhcIkk32qwPQbVMESPB1oNgBnV1oBsktWK3btWP aZfzgsVl5keC0Xcy0DfJxAfbrQmNzJY/SpNIPEomjheSRkuln3FTfweWPPzG9+7R/+Lb WKZy3Hkc9y4q+EWRBO2VhDaNdmmQHnhx4NU8x8D18sXITF2WqzIyVgyGGkWRVjT1lcmI bzfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=UMwZBhpqxvMN4MWwkHckLMAVG27kfXbnwXOCeD112cI=; b=DpjNlyICtAHSUTaHzBjX7j9W8VQ7Jiup+QFGwIXiW/6Hf28LY5STrCiFrrkkgHIpoo VRFhhSe8cYQAhGDa22oO7OHB2H935CnsZXRUSQft63fz/NeMa4bYnCwVowWxU3L6Li0h XIAWgE8eR819eV+3I1IO1Gr0itfcxfLfn/tgmnkxfUCBWJVltY/wZddSXqv6yrLc9UBG GdJZvRROUyUzRs4NSWWx7tEOHqQUPLBVvX4hz1bCxwhHP3nWR79DIa92UyZR8/uOw3gd KhuR/mDhtqkCr5FEACOYP8/eqhZKeHpd88/A+ZxxKjKlSAOkgq/7W1x26ep+Xaw6juYK X+kg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2efp7TU5RCn/vzRYxBSooheNllQEZO7q88DgA5W+kp1vrlNYPR TBg/fVL3KpjBgExfGwavP6A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7qwQkeiT9bIYFGWoJJzTnKudCWsCo3wg9a4a8ZRYNU25geqs9/HUiLyJqucTL0mwrA2mRmEA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:8848:0:b0:42a:1a29:c261 with SMTP id l69-20020a638848000000b0042a1a29c261mr5606255pgd.51.1660926565069; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:db7d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m13-20020a170902db0d00b0016ee4b0bd60sm3402498plx.166.2022.08.19.09.29.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 06:29:22 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: "zhaoyang.huang" Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Zhaoyang Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com, Zefan Li , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem_cgroup when css is inherited Message-ID: References: <1660908562-17409-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1660908562-17409-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1660926567; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=UMwZBhpqxvMN4MWwkHckLMAVG27kfXbnwXOCeD112cI=; b=SA4mhIg9NQ3QjQYNrYHVvBAXW62OEt3uqlR7D9wKpfnoqliMI7iRPQxKmINGEFyLVKPNgT U3IkHZVRYiC/LxOEugy/unXiZNY9coDGU7WYnVZgODeCDMywlAJQguaYKoBaeGgs269mFm i/ai3gIJNEIZiXfgs5EkJjrfp6au7ZA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=GCXQ0jrS; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660926567; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=jOh7m10na3VLEVI2vFo1iu9FE+FTdpM83voLHxO0lLXD1bMnqdjj2xJLChO/X3QfnPCs7f lgUQ6zVCv9EWYqPygCxK1Yk4SVnINX08moTQ5+J4UVShY6f90OWiFjHqFzN6WYHr+PprMQ X5Yfq88pdGf0EroFn8BElUKktfMue5c= X-Stat-Signature: fjn6a9d6y54eht4i39xwwxr8tydkdb1s X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=GCXQ0jrS; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 38F871C0019 X-HE-Tag: 1660926567-641673 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000484, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:29:22PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > It is observed in android system where per-app cgroup is demanded by freezer > subsys and part of groups require memory control. The hierarchy could be simplized > as bellowing where memory charged on group B abserved while we only want have > group E's memory be controlled and B's descendants compete freely for memory. > This should be the consequences of unified hierarchy. > Under this scenario, less efficient memory reclaim is observed when comparing > with no memory control. It is believed that multi LRU scanning introduces some > of the overhead. Furthermore, page thrashing is also heavier than global LRU > which could be the consequences of partial failure of WORKINGSET mechanism as > LRU is too short to protect the active pages. > > A(subtree_control = memory) - B(subtree_control = NULL) - C() > \ D() > - E(subtree_control = memory) - F() > \ G() > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang Just in case it wasn't clear. Nacked-by: Tejun Heo Thanks. -- tejun