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=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 549AFC433DF for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072152076E for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="aOBil5ba" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 072152076E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 95E9F8D0014; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 90FB68D0001; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 826348D0014; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0066.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.66]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F668D0001 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A0133CD for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:45 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77164641330.18.page43_2200c8227021 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF92B100ED0F9 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:44 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: page43_2200c8227021 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4218 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by imf23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1597778083; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zfJNd7RYls8lhl+N7+nbfG2UK0yQWhrSTT/VQFptF2Q=; b=aOBil5bara8TJl0lVxI0iG32QGXVbUxVq4asGMuKQ9KLQaafzrRfQTZEHZd8AZSynw9pu2 4wvIv23g91NOxRCMxqG0pTNie4z3UhBh/TBJ7t3CTOoFc3JvHpNVq7hwYOpggeSAgzQrvF hBCuQfoAZoL6ZdFTa7BCbjtlvi3wEAI= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-122-qCnjyY6iPQiK4u6wOlrzhQ-1; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: qCnjyY6iPQiK4u6wOlrzhQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6142581F020; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from llong.remote.csb (ovpn-112-51.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4091014169; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained control of over memory.high action To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Jonathan Corbet , Alexey Dobriyan , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel , Cgroups , Linux MM References: <20200817140831.30260-1-longman@redhat.com> <20200817140831.30260-2-longman@redhat.com> From: Waiman Long Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <89179081-697d-232d-a936-697e3c662f65@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:14:06 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DF92B100ED0F9 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 8/17/20 12:44 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 7:11 AM 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 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 especially >> when rotating disks are used for swapping or writing dirty pages. In >> this case, the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing. > Isn't this the real underlying issue? Why not make the guarantees of > memory.high more strict instead of adding more interfaces and > complexity? > > By the way, have you observed this issue on real workloads or some > test cases? It would be good to get a repro with simple test cases. > As said before, this is from a customer request. I will need to re-examine the existing features to see if they can satisfy the customer need. Cheers, Longman