Re: memcg: softlimit on internal nodes

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hey, Greg.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 08:35:12PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I agree that the hard limit could be called the oom_threshold.
> 
> The meaning of the term reclaim_threshold is not obvious to me.  I'd
> prefer to call the soft limit a reclaim_target.  System global
> pressure can steal memory from a cgroup until its usage drops to the
> soft limit (aka reclaim_target).  Pressure will try to avoid stealing
> memory below the reclaim target.  The soft limit (reclaim_target) is
> not checked until global pressure exists.  Currently we do not have a
> knob to set a reclaim_threshold, such that when usage exceeds the
> reclaim_threshold async reclaim is queued.  We are not discussing
> triggering anything when soft limit is exceeded.

Yeah, reclaim_target seems like a better name for it.

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>