Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v2)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-02-17 13:20:39]:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:03:52 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > 2. I don't like to change usual direct-memory-reclaim path. It will be obstacles
> > > >    for VM-maintaners to improve memory reclaim. memcg's LRU is designed for
> > > >    shrinking memory usage and not for avoiding memory shortage. IOW, it's slow routine
> > > >    for reclaiming memory for memory shortage.
> > > 
> > > I don't think I agree here. Direct reclaim is the first indication of
> > > shortage and if order 0 pages are short, memcg's above their soft
> > > limit can be targetted first.
> > > 
> > My "slow" means "the overhead seems to be big". The latency will increase.
> > 
> > About 0-order
> > In patch 4/4
> > +	did_some_progress = mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(gfp_mask);
> > +	/*
> > should be
> >         if (!order)
> >             did_some_progress = mem....
> above is wrong.
> 
> if (!order && (gfp_mask & GFP_MOVABLE)) ....Hmm, but this is not correct.
> I have no good idea to avoid unnecessary works.
> 
> BTW,  why don't you call soft_limit_reclaim from kswapd's path ?
>

I think it has to be both kswapd and pdflush path, I can consider that
option as well. That needs more thought on the design.
 

-- 
	Balbir

--
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>