From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: memcg: softlimit on internal nodes Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:51:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20130423125101.GE8001@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20130420002620.GA17179@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130420031611.GA4695@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130421022321.GE19097@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130422042445.GA25089@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130422153730.GG18286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130422154620.GB12543@htj.dyndns.org> <20130422155454.GH18286@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Balbir Singh , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Hugh Dickins , Ying Han , Glauber Costa , Greg Thelen On Tue 23-04-13 02:58:19, Michel Lespinasse wrote: [...] > However, your proposal takes that weak guarantee away as soon as one > tries to use cgroup hierarchies with it, because it reclaims from > every child cgroup as soon as the parent hits its soft limit. Reading this again I am really getting confused. The primary objection used to be that under-soft-limit inter-node subtree shouldn't be reclaimed although there are children over their soft limits. Now we have moved to over-limit inder-node shouldn't hammer its subtree? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs