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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 37208C433ED for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:38:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36396113C for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:38:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C36396113C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2A78D6B007E; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 27DC96B0080; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:38:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1304F6B0081; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:38:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0122.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.122]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A546B007E for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin35.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958EE1801BB6C for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:38:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78002650656.35.FD22CFC Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29B190009DE for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:37:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1617730686; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hy/Puw7wiOKdv1e6aYeo233WDpteGQ9X9GmvSUq6v3w=; b=TUncJgY8eCNs4Qon31BmnDC2PCjF7DFjDHQVavlTA2Ni989pUXMc4JCW0AphcSi37Y/V4E qSlwsTZAiCf7LpFYU5Mt9t7i75aYnEvQhaj57/jj5fSvL0FkJXlYe6HVTyIVDNoOls+GWQ kwWaiRHiY2wXu2JdVwmfhH7L/X0eL1s= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED03DB262; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 19:38:01 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Neil Sun Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan.c: drop_slab_node with task's memcg Message-ID: References: <1617359934-7812-1-git-send-email-neilsun@yunify.com> <4dba277d-e497-5c34-0e68-fd2283585de2@yunify.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: 436zbwya5xue8u9ty3zrsynoogoesnoa X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D29B190009DE Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf19; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1617730679-475985 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 Tue 06-04-21 23:12:34, Neil Sun wrote: > > > On 2021/4/6 22:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Have you considered using high limit for the pro-active memory reclaim? > > Thanks, Michal, do you mean the procfs interfaces? > We have set vm.vfs_cache_pressure=1000 and so on. > would you please take an example? No, I've meant high memory limit available in the memcg v2 interface: Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs