From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: memcg: softlimit on internal nodes
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:42:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130420004221.GB17179@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130420002620.GA17179@mtj.dyndns.org>
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 05:26:20PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> If such actual soft limit is desired (I don't know, it just seems like
> a very fundamental / logical feature to me), please don't try to
> somehow overload "softlimit". They are two fundamentally different
> knobs, both make sense in their own ways, and when you stop confusing
> the two, there's nothing ambiguous about what what each knob means in
> hierarchical situations. This goes the same for the "untrusted" flag
> Ying told me, which seems like another confused way to overload two
> meanings onto "softlimit". Don't overload!
As for how actually to clean up this yet another mess in memcg, I
don't know. Maybe introduce completely new knobs - say,
oom_threshold, reclaim_threshold, and reclaim_trigger - and alias
hardlimit to oom_threshold and softlimit to recalim_trigger? BTW,
"softlimit" should default to 0. Nothing else makes any sense.
Maybe you can gate it with "sane_behavior" flag or something. I don't
know. It's your mess to clean up. :P
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-20 0:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-20 0:26 memcg: softlimit on internal nodes Tejun Heo
2013-04-20 0:42 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2013-04-20 3:35 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-21 1:53 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-20 3:16 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-21 2:23 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-21 8:55 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-22 4:24 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 7:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-22 14:48 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:37 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 15:46 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:54 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 16:01 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-23 9:58 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 10:17 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 11:40 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 11:54 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 12:51 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 13:06 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 13:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 13:28 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 11:32 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 12:45 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 12:59 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-21 12:46 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 4:39 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:19 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 15:57 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:57 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 18:30 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-23 9:29 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-26 11:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-26 18:37 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-29 15:27 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 0/4] soft limit rework Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 1/4] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 2/4] memcg: Get rid of soft-limit tree infrastructure Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 3/4] vmscan, memcg: Do softlimit reclaim also for targeted reclaim Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 4/4] memcg: Ignore soft limit until it is explicitly specified Michal Hocko
2013-04-24 21:45 ` memcg: softlimit on internal nodes Johannes Weiner
2013-04-25 0:33 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-29 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130420004221.GB17179@mtj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).