From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mm: memcg: hierarchical soft limit reclaim
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:34:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120113163423.GG17060@tiehlicka.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120113155001.GB1653@cmpxchg.org>
On Fri 13-01-12 16:50:01, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:04:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-01-12 16:02:52, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > > +bool mem_cgroup_over_softlimit(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > +{
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (!root)
> > > + root = root_mem_cgroup;
> > > +
> > > + for (; memcg; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) {
> > > + /* root_mem_cgroup does not have a soft limit */
> > > + if (memcg == root_mem_cgroup)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&memcg->res))
> > > + return true;
> > > + if (memcg == root)
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> >
> > Well, this might be little bit tricky. We do not check whether memcg and
> > root are in a hierarchy (in terms of use_hierarchy) relation.
> >
> > If we are under global reclaim then we iterate over all memcgs and so
> > there is no guarantee that there is a hierarchical relation between the
> > given memcg and its parent. While, on the other hand, if we are doing
> > memcg reclaim then we have this guarantee.
> >
> > Why should we punish a group (subtree) which is perfectly under its soft
> > limit just because some other subtree contributes to the common parent's
> > usage and makes it over its limit?
> > Should we check memcg->use_hierarchy here?
>
> We do, actually. parent_mem_cgroup() checks the res_counter parent,
> which is only set when ->use_hierarchy is also set.
Of course I am blind.. We do not setup res_counter parent for
!use_hierarchy case. Sorry for noise...
Now it makes much better sense. I was wondering how !use_hierarchy could
ever work, this should be a signal that I am overlooking something
terribly.
[...]
> > > @@ -2121,8 +2121,16 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > > .mem_cgroup = memcg,
> > > .zone = zone,
> > > };
> > > + int epriority = priority;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Put more pressure on hierarchies that exceed their
> > > + * soft limit, to push them back harder than their
> > > + * well-behaving siblings.
> > > + */
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_over_softlimit(root, memcg))
> > > + epriority = 0;
> >
> > This sounds too aggressive to me. Shouldn't we just double the pressure
> > or something like that?
>
> That's the historical value. When I tried priority - 1, it was not
> aggressive enough.
Probably because we want to reclaim too much. Maybe we should do
reduce nr_to_reclaim (ugly) or reclaim only overlimit groups until certain
priority level as Ying suggested in her patchset.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-13 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-10 15:02 [patch 0/2] mm: memcg reclaim integration followups Johannes Weiner
2012-01-10 15:02 ` [patch 1/2] mm: memcg: per-memcg reclaim statistics Johannes Weiner
2012-01-10 23:54 ` Ying Han
2012-01-11 0:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-11 22:33 ` Ying Han
2012-01-12 9:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-10 15:02 ` [patch 2/2] mm: memcg: hierarchical soft limit reclaim Johannes Weiner
2012-01-11 21:42 ` Ying Han
2012-01-12 8:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-13 21:31 ` Ying Han
2012-01-13 22:44 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-17 14:22 ` Sha
2012-01-17 14:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-17 20:25 ` Ying Han
2012-01-17 21:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-17 23:39 ` Ying Han
[not found] ` <CAFj3OHWY2Biw54gaGeH5fkxzgOhxn7NAibeYT_Jmga-_ypNSRg@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-18 9:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-18 11:25 ` Sha
2012-01-18 15:27 ` Michal Hocko
2012-01-19 6:38 ` Sha
2012-01-12 1:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-13 12:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-18 5:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-13 12:04 ` Michal Hocko
2012-01-13 15:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-13 16:34 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2012-01-13 21:45 ` Ying Han
2012-01-18 9:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-01-18 20:38 ` Ying Han
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=20120113163423.GG17060@tiehlicka.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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).