From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804BCC433E1 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDA520738 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="xgXKcBxj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726640AbgHRJ7a (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 05:59:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37154 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726145AbgHRJ72 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 05:59:28 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1231::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED336C061389; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:59:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=AMCRlHQqFClUdfDgWF0Pc4T0d8x7BsArDzhjVVkMBFc=; b=xgXKcBxjIZlrJ2bfw/hT1bnAoS kBjjfcb6QgfBLTcDMcHpy8F4bRDIAIYsX+KlAFGVgPJObGB0scLri+4ZnTtHvYjeaQF7lshfo8YNf NFmwu+hYtQ1fCP1mgDGFnFFJkkKQHjZU4cWQWZDVowbL6lgdSb17nzCmGp+WBJ8GQIT+Y2soQbKo9 Zdjf17B1voahyFMG7Hhq4akH3EGdqexyEj9wWM+kB6N8masvpaQTPJ5wzSo62sMaUVtMNCUck34Y9 wNNgjNvKf/jG+0QOKa2zufhfKfliZLU8qGC4oj+TBUtiDaZ89RlznYJOt0N4MT4x2OoGYFzEugjqv oU5eG/DA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k7yOf-0000ZR-Ew; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:59:13 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B322300DB4; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:59:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64F6822E9BD55; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:59:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:59:10 +0200 From: peterz@infradead.org To: Michal Hocko Cc: Waiman Long , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Jonathan Corbet , Alexey Dobriyan , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control Message-ID: <20200818095910.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20200817140831.30260-1-longman@redhat.com> <20200818091453.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200818092617.GN28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200818092617.GN28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 18-08-20 11:14:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of > > > physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in > > > a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim > > > memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough > > > to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup > > > to be around or below the "memory.high" limit. > > > > > > Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate > > > that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case, > > > the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing. > > > > Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we > > slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits. > > This is what we actually do. Have a look at mem_cgroup_handle_over_high. But then how can it run-away like Waiman suggested? /me goes look... and finds MEMCG_MAX_HIGH_DELAY_JIFFIES. That's a fail... :-(