Re: [PATCH 4/4] Memory controller soft limit reclaim on contention (v5)

["KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Balbir Singh wrote:
> * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-13 16:17:25]:

> 1. Kame's scan logic, selects shrink_zone for the mem cgroup, but the
>    pages scanned and reclaimed from depend on priority and watermarks
>    of the zone and *not* at all on the soft limit parameters.
What means "not at all" ? My test result was illusion ?
My routine reclaims memory from memcg which over soft limit....
What modification is necessary ?
(Anyway, I'll remove priority and introduce something more intellegent here.)

> 2. Because soft limit reclaim fails to reclaim anythoing (due to 1),
>    shrink_zone which is called, does reclaiming indepedent of any
>    knowledge of soft limits, which does not work as expected.
>
I agree that we need some hook to loop in of shrink_zone to taking
care of softlimit.

Thanks,
-Kame


>
> --
> 	Balbir
>
> --
> 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>
>


--
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>