From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"cgroups@vger.kernel.org" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:42:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190128214213.GB15349@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190128210031.GA31446@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Roman Gushchin writes:
>Hm, it looks a bit suspicious to me.
>
>Let's say memory.low = 3G, memory.min = 1G and memory.current = 2G.
>cgroup_size / protection == 1, so scan doesn't depend on memory.min at all.
>
>So, we need to look directly at memory.emin in memcg_low_reclaim case, and
>ignore memory.(e)low.
Hmm, this isn't really a common situation that I'd thought about, but it seems
reasonable to make the boundaries when in low reclaim to be between min and
low, rather than 0 and low. I'll add another patch with that. Thanks
>> + scan = clamp(scan, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, lruvec_size);
>
>Idk, how much sense does it have to make it larger than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
>given that it will become 0 on default (and almost any other) priority.
In my testing, setting the scan target to 0 and thus reducing scope for reclaim
can result in increasing the scan priority more than is desirable, and since we
base some vm heuristics based on that, that seemed concerning.
I'd rather start being a bit more cautious, erring on the side of scanning at
least some pages from this memcg when priority gets elevated.
Thanks for the review!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-28 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-24 1:44 [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim Chris Down
2019-01-28 21:00 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-01-28 21:42 ` Chris Down [this message]
2019-01-28 21:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-07-15 22:35 ` Andrew Morton
2019-07-15 22:57 ` Chris Down
2019-07-16 17:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-09-26 11:49 ` 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=20190128214213.GB15349@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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).