Re: [RFC] [PATCH 3/4] Reclaim from groups over their soft limit under memory pressure

["Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Paul Menage wrote:
>  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>  > <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>  >>  We can free memory by just making memory.limit to smaller number.
>  >>  (This may cause OOM. If we added high-low watermark, making memory.high smaller
>  >>   can works well for memory freeing to some extent.)
>  >>
>  >
>  > What about if we want to apply memory pressure to a cgroup to push out
>  > unused memory, but not push out memory that it's actively using?
>
>  Both watermarks and reducing the limit will reclaim from the inactive list
>  first. The reclaim logic is the same as that of the per zone LRU. It would be
>  right to assume that both would push out unused memory first. Am I missing
>  something?
>

Doesn't the per-zone LRU logic try to keep the inactive list at a
certain percentage of memory? In which case you can't really tell from
the active/inactive stats for a cgroup how much of that memory it's
really using.

Paul

--
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>