From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] slightly change shrinker behaviour for very small object sets Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:58:36 -0800 Message-ID: <50F4636C.6030908@parallels.com> References: <1356086810-6950-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1356086810-6950-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Dave Shrinnker , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com On 12/21/2012 02:46 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi, > > * v2: fix sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure for all users. > > I've recently noticed some glitches in the object shrinker mechanism when a > very small number of objects is used. Those situations are theoretically > possible, albeit unlikely. But although it may feel like it is purely > theoretical, they can become common in environments with many small containers > (cgroups) in a box. > > Those patches came from some experimentation I am doing with targetted-shrinking > for kmem-limited memory cgroups (Dave Shrinnker is already aware of such work). > In such scenarios, one can set the available memory to very low limits, and it > becomes easy to see this. > > Hi, Who should pick this one up? Are there any comments aside from Dave's Reviewed-by tag that I wrongly transcribed? Thanks! -- 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: email@kvack.org