Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] memcg: free all at rmdir

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-11-13T01:28:32Z

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:50:40 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:07:58 -0800
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:26:56 +0900
> >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +5.1 on_rmdir
> >>> +set behavior of memcg at rmdir (Removing cgroup) default is "drop".
> >>> +
> >>> +5.1.1 drop
> >>> + #echo on_rmdir drop > memory.attribute
> >>> + This is default. All pages on the memcg will be freed.
> >>> + If pages are locked or too busy, they will be moved up to the parent.
> >>> + Useful when you want to drop (large) page caches used in this memcg.
> >>> + But some of in-use page cache can be dropped by this.
> >>> +
> >>> +5.1.2 keep
> >>> + #echo on_rmdir keep > memory.attribute
> >>> + All pages on the memcg will be moved to its parent.
> >>> + Useful when you don't want to drop page caches used in this memcg.
> >>> + You can keep page caches from some library or DB accessed by this
> >>> + memcg on memory.
> >> Would it not be more useful to implement a per-memcg version of
> >> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches? (One without drop_caches' locking bug,
> >> hopefully).
> >>
> >> If we do this then we can make the above "keep" behaviour non-optional,
> >> and the operator gets to choose whether or not to drop the caches
> >> before doing the rmdir.
> >>
> >> Plus, we get a new per-memcg drop_caches capability. And it's a nicer
> >> interface, and it doesn't have the obvious races which on_rmdir has,
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> hm?
> >>
> > In my plan, I'll add
> >
> > memory.shrink_usage interface to do and allows
> >
> > #echo 0M > memory.shrink_memory_usage
> > (you may swap tasks out if there is task..)
> >
> > to drop pages.
> >
>
> So, shrink_memory_usage is just for dropping caches? I don't understand the part
> about swap tasks out.
>
No, just for shrinking usage. It can also drops ANON.

> > Balbir, how do you think ? I've already removed "force_empty".
>
> Have you? Won't that go against API/ABI compatibility guidelines. I would
> recommend cc'ing linux-api as well. Sorry, I missed the patch that removes
> force_empty. Me culpa.
>
account_move did that....

That was only for debug and is a hole for security of resource management.
So, removed.

Thanks,
-Kame