From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753955Ab1HaGiL (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:38:11 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:56466 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752880Ab1HaGiH (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:38:07 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:30:25 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Andrew Brestic , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan_stat" Message-Id: <20110831153025.895997bf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110831062354.GA355@redhat.com> References: <20110829155113.GA21661@redhat.com> <20110830101233.ae416284.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830070424.GA13061@redhat.com> <20110830162050.f6c13c0c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830084245.GC13061@redhat.com> <20110830175609.4977ef7a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830101726.GD13061@redhat.com> <20110830193839.cf0fc597.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830113221.GF13061@redhat.com> <20110831082924.f9b20959.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110831062354.GA355@redhat.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200 > > > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200 > > > > > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > I'm confused. > > > > If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU, > > (memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++ > > (memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++ > > Yes. > > > Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ? > > > > I think we can never get numbers. > > Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external, > since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal. > hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef is all external. > On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the > machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal. > > I think the former may be more natural. > > That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously. > Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero. If items differ > between cgroups, that would suck a lot. So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal. How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ? Should be counted into scan_internal ? Thanks, -Kame From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4D76B00EE for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30433EE0C8 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:38:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755D245DE62 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:38:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D02045DE58 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:38:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3DA1DB804E for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:38:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.146]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF07E08005 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:38:04 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:30:25 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] Revert "memcg: add memory.vmscan_stat" Message-Id: <20110831153025.895997bf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110831062354.GA355@redhat.com> References: <20110829155113.GA21661@redhat.com> <20110830101233.ae416284.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830070424.GA13061@redhat.com> <20110830162050.f6c13c0c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830084245.GC13061@redhat.com> <20110830175609.4977ef7a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830101726.GD13061@redhat.com> <20110830193839.cf0fc597.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110830113221.GF13061@redhat.com> <20110831082924.f9b20959.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110831062354.GA355@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Andrew Brestic , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200 > > > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200 > > > > > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > I'm confused. > > > > If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU, > > (memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++ > > (memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++ > > Yes. > > > Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ? > > > > I think we can never get numbers. > > Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external, > since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal. > hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef is all external. > On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the > machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal. > > I think the former may be more natural. > > That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously. > Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero. If items differ > between cgroups, that would suck a lot. So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal. How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ? Should be counted into scan_internal ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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