From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751939Ab1INHlt (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:41:49 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:35514 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154Ab1INHlr (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:41:47 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:40:45 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , Greg Thelen , Michel Lespinasse , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christoph Hellwig , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 04/11] mm: memcg: per-priority per-zone hierarchy scan generations Message-Id: <20110914164045.f8074468.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110914055634.GA28051@redhat.com> References: <1315825048-3437-1-git-send-email-jweiner@redhat.com> <1315825048-3437-5-git-send-email-jweiner@redhat.com> <20110913192759.ff0da031.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110913110301.GB18886@redhat.com> <20110914095504.30fca5d0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110914055634.GA28051@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, 14 Sep 2011 07:56:34 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:55:04AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:03:01 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > No, the hierarchy iteration in shrink_zone() is done after a single > memcg, which is equivalent to the old code: scan all zones at all > priority levels from a memcg, then move on to the next memcg. This > also works because of the per-zone per-priority last_scanned_child: > > for each priority > for each zone > mem = mem_cgroup_iter(root) > scan(mem) > > priority-12 + zone-1 will yield memcg-1. priority-12 + zone-2 starts > at its own last_scanned_child, so yields memcg-1 as well, etc. A > second reclaimer that comes in with priority-12 + zone-1 will receive > memcg-2 for scanning. So there is no change in behaviour for limit > reclaim. > ok, thanks. > > If so, I need to abandon node-selection-logic for reclaim-by-limit > > and nodemask-for-memcg which shows me very good result. > > I'll be sad ;) > > With my clarification, do you still think so? > No. Thank you. Regards, -Kame From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB4A6B0023 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D693EE0BC for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:41:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1E545DE54 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:41:45 +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 448FC45DD6F for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:41:45 +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 3836C1DB804D for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:41:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.147]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B4B1DB803A for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:41:45 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:40:45 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch 04/11] mm: memcg: per-priority per-zone hierarchy scan generations Message-Id: <20110914164045.f8074468.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110914055634.GA28051@redhat.com> References: <1315825048-3437-1-git-send-email-jweiner@redhat.com> <1315825048-3437-5-git-send-email-jweiner@redhat.com> <20110913192759.ff0da031.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110913110301.GB18886@redhat.com> <20110914095504.30fca5d0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110914055634.GA28051@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 , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , Greg Thelen , Michel Lespinasse , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christoph Hellwig , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:56:34 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:55:04AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:03:01 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner wrote: > No, the hierarchy iteration in shrink_zone() is done after a single > memcg, which is equivalent to the old code: scan all zones at all > priority levels from a memcg, then move on to the next memcg. This > also works because of the per-zone per-priority last_scanned_child: > > for each priority > for each zone > mem = mem_cgroup_iter(root) > scan(mem) > > priority-12 + zone-1 will yield memcg-1. priority-12 + zone-2 starts > at its own last_scanned_child, so yields memcg-1 as well, etc. A > second reclaimer that comes in with priority-12 + zone-1 will receive > memcg-2 for scanning. So there is no change in behaviour for limit > reclaim. > ok, thanks. > > If so, I need to abandon node-selection-logic for reclaim-by-limit > > and nodemask-for-memcg which shows me very good result. > > I'll be sad ;) > > With my clarification, do you still think so? > No. Thank you. Regards, -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