Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: memcg set soft_limit_in_bytes to 0 by default

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

(2012/06/07 3:23), Ying Han wrote:
> This idea is based on discussion with Michal and Johannes from LSF.
> 
> 1. If soft_limit are all set to MAX, it wastes first three priority iterations
> without scanning anything.
> 
> 2. By default every memcg is eligible for softlimit reclaim, and we can also
> set the value to MAX for special memcg which is immune to soft limit reclaim.
> 
> There is a behavior change after this patch: (N == DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> 
>          A: usage>  softlimit        B: usage<= softlimit        U: softlimit unset
> old:    reclaim at each priority    reclaim when priority<  N    reclaim when priority<  N
> new:    reclaim at each priority    reclaim when priority<  N    reclaim at each priority
> 
> Note: I can leave the counter->soft_limit uninitialized, at least all the
> caller of res_counter_init() have the memcg as pre-zeroed structure. However, I
> might be better not rely on that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ying Han<yinghan@google.com>

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

--
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>