From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrey Ryabinin Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memcg: try harder to decrease [memory,memsw].limit_in_bytes Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:30:59 +0300 Message-ID: <7d1b5bfb-f602-8cf4-2de6-dd186484e55c@virtuozzo.com> References: <20180109152622.31ca558acb0cc25a1b14f38c@linux-foundation.org> <20180110124317.28887-1-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <20180111104239.GZ1732@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4a8f667d-c2ae-e3df-00fd-edc01afe19e1@virtuozzo.com> <20180111124629.GA1732@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180111162947.GG1732@dhcp22.suse.cz> <560a77b5-02d7-cbae-35f3-0b20a1c384c2@virtuozzo.com> <20180112122405.GK1732@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtuozzo.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=oblxiovEdl6j21U+S1apdsciE7vYM21+Z/J8x3IQj1w=; b=WmEYu2Z1jBI6uCqUHzUtZ0zYtLFe2X7e3KlmshTPAqTFG5uYmjrI8tfPctWZoeCNLwaJpSyx0ZhGscxWwwPT9MQ32SkLtEpdxdoqhmwuH9LWlfG1DYS+9PwGrUDe8pVlCnK0dHl0HOQPUNYOS6uNLs5ApGV1eYSw3/vu0Ht3foo= In-Reply-To: <20180112122405.GK1732@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt On 01/12/2018 03:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 12-01-18 00:59:38, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> On 01/11/2018 07:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> I do not think so. Consider that this reclaim races with other >>> reclaimers. Now you are reclaiming a large chunk so you might end up >>> reclaiming more than necessary. SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would reduce the over >>> reclaim to be negligible. >>> >> >> I did consider this. And I think, I already explained that sort of race in previous email. >> Whether "Task B" is really a task in cgroup or it's actually a bunch of reclaimers, >> doesn't matter. That doesn't change anything. > > I would _really_ prefer two patches here. The first one removing the > hard coded reclaim count. That thing is just dubious at best. If you > _really_ think that the higher reclaim target is meaningfull then make > it a separate patch. I am not conviced but I will not nack it it either. > But it will make our life much easier if my over reclaim concern is > right and we will need to revert it. Conceptually those two changes are > independent anywa. > Ok, fair point. But what about livelock than? Don't you think that we should go back to something like in V1 patch to prevent it? -- 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