From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Memory reclaim protection and cgroup nesting (desktop use) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:39:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20200305153948.GB6939@mtj.thefacebook.com> References: <20200304163044.GF189690@mtj.thefacebook.com> <4d3e00457bba40b25f3ac4fd376ba7306ffc4e68.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20200305145554.GA5897@mtj.thefacebook.com> <7ce3aa9cf6f7501ce2ce6057a03a40cd5e126efd.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=PHq9PaeVGtyudk0wOTWZY80KOkaKDj/XvNUNHTcU/hU=; b=st265gUVi6yGmxIN+nyLlX9bI0TZYas/Sz1TACzRXEO0WsuHyBBHN+VJCFf49CjWOK O/Kqo75c9VQGL/OBHP+jKGyGvguT1v4JDGpgwSqbi8BlLcePzstMqZu3B7ljA0i0m1zn Pn9/sKYplZJfqEPkySASJ2XYQCboTZZSQIgqYReLFiukIgvov+qJnOdVPb52daw8SipC ZKlqq0Xs0QXTo/Q79Lijg7YZCvpe9D/p1yf1i+oTH0TeNV3ju4wZSgYs15DjwMm4QIdB GJwSOhKCZ08ksO0b2LR2UOP0tHQN+hmJwB0KKr9R8E1XQykMTfuObZfEeVhcEQ9KRscb zAVQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7ce3aa9cf6f7501ce2ce6057a03a40cd5e126efd.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Benjamin Berg Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner Hello, Benjamin. On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 04:27:19PM +0100, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > Changing memory limits dynamically can lead to pretty abrupt system > > behaviors depending on how big the swing is but memory.low and io/cpu > > weights should behave fine. > > Right, we'll need some daemon to handle this, so we could even smooth > out any change over a period of time. But it seems like that will not > be needed. I don't expect we'll want to change anything beyond > memory.low and io/cpu weights. Yeah, you don't need to baby memory.low and io/cpu weights at all. > > Sounds great. In our experience, what would help quite a lot is using > > per-application cgroups more (e.g. containing each application as user > > services) so that one misbehaving command can't overwhelm the session > > and eventually when oomd has to kick in, it can identify and kill only > > the culprit application rather than the whole session. > > We are already trying to do this in GNOME. :) Awesome. > Right now GNOME is only moving processes into cgroups after launching > them though (i.e. transient systemd scopes). Even just that would be plenty helpful. > But, the goal here is to improve it further and launch all > applications directly using systemd (i.e. as systemd services). systemd > itself is going to define some standards to facilitate everything. And > we'll probably also need to update some XDG standards. > > So, there are some plans already, but many details have not been solved > yet. But at least KDE and GNOME people are looking into integrating > well with systemd. Sounds great. Please let us know if there's anything we can help with. Thanks. -- tejun