From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31B36B0011 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 13:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.7]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p44HGgrp032711 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:16:42 -0700 Received: from qyk36 (qyk36.prod.google.com [10.241.83.164]) by hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p44HFQiQ029426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:16:40 -0700 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so3234013qyk.4 for ; Wed, 04 May 2011 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110504085851.GC1375@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110425182849.ab708f12.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110429133313.GB306@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110501150410.75D2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110503064945.GA18927@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110503082550.GD18927@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110504085851.GC1375@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:16:39 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] memcg: add high/low watermark to res_counter From: Ying Han Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Johannes Weiner , "minchan.kim@gmail.com" On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 03-05-11 10:01:27, Ying Han wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Tue 03-05-11 16:45:23, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> 2011/5/3 Michal Hocko : >> >> > On Sun 01-05-11 15:06:02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon 25-04-11 18:28:49, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > [...] >> >> >> Can you please clarify this? I feel it is not opposite semantics. >> >> > >> >> > In the global reclaim low watermark represents the point when we _start_ >> >> > background reclaim while high watermark is the _stopper_. Watermarks are >> >> > based on the free memory while this proposal makes it based on the used >> >> > memory. >> >> > I understand that the result is same in the end but it is really >> >> > confusing because you have to switch your mindset from free to used and >> >> > from under the limit to above the limit. >> >> >> >> Ah, right. So, do you have an alternative idea? >> > >> > Why cannot we just keep the global reclaim semantic and make it free >> > memory (hard_limit - usage_in_bytes) based with low limit as the trigger >> > for reclaiming? >> > [...] >> The current scheme > > What is the current scheme? using the "usage_in_bytes" instead of "free" --Ying > >> is closer to the global bg reclaim which the low is triggering reclaim >> and high is stopping reclaim. And we can only use the "usage" to keep >> the same API. > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > SUSE LINUX s.r.o. > Lihovarska 1060/12 > 190 00 Praha 9 > Czech Republic > -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org