From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:17:33 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140612161733.GC23606@htj.dyndns.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140612142237.GB32720@dhcp22.suse.cz> Hello, Michal. On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > The primary question would be, whether this is is the best transition > strategy. I do not know how many users apart from developers are really > using unified hierarchy. I would be worried that we merge a feature which > will not be used for a long time. I'm planning to drop __DEVEL__ mask from the unified hierarchy in a cycle, at most two. The biggest hold up at the moment is straightening out the interfaces and interaction between memcg and blkcg because I think it'd be silly to have to go through another round of interface versioning effort right after transitioning to unified hierarchy. I'm not too confident whether it'd be possible to get blkcg completely in shape by that time, but, if that takes too long, I'll just leave blkcg behind temporarily. So, at least from kernel side, it's not gonna be too long. There sure is a question of how fast userland will move to the new interface. Some are already playing with unified hierarchy and planning to migrate as soon as possible but there sure will be others who will take more time. Can't tell for sure, but the thing is that migration to min/low/high/max scheme is a signficant migration effort too, so I'm not sure how much we'd gain by doing that separately. It'd be an extra transition step for userland (optional but still), more combinations of configration to handle for memcg, and it's not like unified hierarchy is that difficult to transition to. > Moreover, if somebody wants to transition from soft limit then it would > be really hard because switching to unified hierarchy might be a no-go. Why would that be a no-go? Its usage is mostly similar with tranditional hierarchies and can be used with other hierarchies, so while it'd take some adaptation, in most cases gradual transition shouldn't be a big problem. > I think that it is clear that we should deprecate soft_limit ASAP. I > also think it wont't hurt to have min, low, high in both old and unified > API and strongly warn if somebody tries to use soft_limit along with any > of the new APIs in the first step. Later we can even forbid any > combination by a hard failure. I don't quite understand how you plan to deprecate it. Sure you can fail with -EINVAL or whatnot when the wrong combination is used but I don't think there's any chance of removing the knob. There's a reason why we're introducing a new version of the whole cgroup interface which can co-exist with the existing one after all. If you wanna version memcg interface separately, maybe that'd work but it sounds like a lot of extra hassle for not much gain. Thanks. -- tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:17:33 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20140612161733.GC23606@htj.dyndns.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20140612142237.GB32720@dhcp22.suse.cz> Hello, Michal. On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > The primary question would be, whether this is is the best transition > strategy. I do not know how many users apart from developers are really > using unified hierarchy. I would be worried that we merge a feature which > will not be used for a long time. I'm planning to drop __DEVEL__ mask from the unified hierarchy in a cycle, at most two. The biggest hold up at the moment is straightening out the interfaces and interaction between memcg and blkcg because I think it'd be silly to have to go through another round of interface versioning effort right after transitioning to unified hierarchy. I'm not too confident whether it'd be possible to get blkcg completely in shape by that time, but, if that takes too long, I'll just leave blkcg behind temporarily. So, at least from kernel side, it's not gonna be too long. There sure is a question of how fast userland will move to the new interface. Some are already playing with unified hierarchy and planning to migrate as soon as possible but there sure will be others who will take more time. Can't tell for sure, but the thing is that migration to min/low/high/max scheme is a signficant migration effort too, so I'm not sure how much we'd gain by doing that separately. It'd be an extra transition step for userland (optional but still), more combinations of configration to handle for memcg, and it's not like unified hierarchy is that difficult to transition to. > Moreover, if somebody wants to transition from soft limit then it would > be really hard because switching to unified hierarchy might be a no-go. Why would that be a no-go? Its usage is mostly similar with tranditional hierarchies and can be used with other hierarchies, so while it'd take some adaptation, in most cases gradual transition shouldn't be a big problem. > I think that it is clear that we should deprecate soft_limit ASAP. I > also think it wont't hurt to have min, low, high in both old and unified > API and strongly warn if somebody tries to use soft_limit along with any > of the new APIs in the first step. Later we can even forbid any > combination by a hard failure. I don't quite understand how you plan to deprecate it. Sure you can fail with -EINVAL or whatnot when the wrong combination is used but I don't think there's any chance of removing the knob. There's a reason why we're introducing a new version of the whole cgroup interface which can co-exist with the existing one after all. If you wanna version memcg interface separately, maybe that'd work but it sounds like a lot of extra hassle for not much gain. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-12 16:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 196+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-04-28 12:26 [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 22:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:36 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 13:01 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 13:01 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 14:15 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 14:15 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:04 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:34 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:48 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:48 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:58 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:58 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 15:58 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 15:58 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 16:49 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 16:49 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 22:00 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 22:00 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-05 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-05 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-19 16:18 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-19 16:18 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:15 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:15 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 16:08 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 16:08 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 13:29 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 15:21 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 15:21 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 16:12 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 16:12 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 18:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 18:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-06 19:55 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] memcg: Allow setting low_limit Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] memcg, doc: clarify global vs. limit reclaims Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 23:03 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 23:03 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:56 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-06 19:56 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] memcg: Document memory.low_limit_in_bytes Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 22:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 9:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 9:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Roman Gushchin 2014-04-28 15:46 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 7:42 ` Greg Thelen 2014-04-29 7:42 ` Greg Thelen 2014-04-29 10:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 10:50 ` Roman Gushchin 2014-04-29 12:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-29 12:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 21:52 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 21:52 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 22:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-04-30 22:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-02 12:03 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 12:03 ` Michal Hocko 2014-04-30 21:59 ` Andrew Morton 2014-04-30 21:59 ` Andrew Morton 2014-05-02 11:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-02 11:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 12:10 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 13:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 13:49 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 14:21 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 15:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 15:28 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 15:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 15:54 ` Michal Hocko 2014-05-28 16:33 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 16:33 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-03 11:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 11:07 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-03 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-04 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-04 15:44 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 15:44 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins 2014-06-04 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins 2014-06-04 21:45 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-04 21:45 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 14:51 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 14:51 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:43 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-06 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 14:46 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-06 15:29 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:29 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-06 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 8:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-09 8:30 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-09 13:54 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 13:54 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-09 22:52 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-09 22:52 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-10 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-10 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-10 22:16 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-10 22:16 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-11 7:57 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 7:57 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 8:00 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:36 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 13:56 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 13:56 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 14:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 14:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-12 16:17 ` Tejun Heo [this message] 2014-06-12 16:17 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 12:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 12:59 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 13:57 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 13:57 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:04 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:04 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:12 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:29 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 14:40 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-16 14:40 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-12 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-12 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-16 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-16 13:22 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: allow OOM if no memcg is eligible during direct reclaim Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 15:20 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-11 16:14 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 16:14 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 12:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit reclaim Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 12:31 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 14:11 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-11 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-11 15:34 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 19:36 ` Tejun Heo 2014-06-05 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 14:32 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 15:43 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 15:43 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-05 16:46 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-06-05 16:46 ` Johannes Weiner 2014-05-28 16:17 ` Greg Thelen 2014-05-28 16:17 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-03 11:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 11:09 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:01 ` Greg Thelen 2014-06-03 14:44 ` Michal Hocko 2014-06-03 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
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=20140612161733.GC23606@htj.dyndns.org \ --to=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=gthelen@google.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=hughd@google.com \ --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=klamm@yandex-team.ru \ --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=lizefan@huawei.com \ --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \ --cc=walken@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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.