From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:53:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160311095309.GF27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160311091303.GJ1946@esperanza>
On Fri 11-03-16 12:13:04, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:42:39AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 11-03-16 11:34:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 03:50:13PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > When setting memory.high below usage, nothing happens until the next
> > > > charge comes along, and then it will only reclaim its own charge and
> > > > not the now potentially huge excess of the new memory.high. This can
> > > > cause groups to stay in excess of their memory.high indefinitely.
> > > >
> > > > To fix that, when shrinking memory.high, kick off a reclaim cycle that
> > > > goes after the delta.
> > >
> > > I agree that we should reclaim the high excess, but I don't think it's a
> > > good idea to do it synchronously. Currently, memory.low and memory.high
> > > knobs can be easily used by a single-threaded load manager implemented
> > > in userspace, because it doesn't need to care about potential stalls
> > > caused by writes to these files. After this change it might happen that
> > > a write to memory.high would take long, seconds perhaps, so in order to
> > > react quickly to changes in other cgroups, a load manager would have to
> > > spawn a thread per each write to memory.high, which would complicate its
> > > implementation significantly.
> >
> > Is the complication on the managing part really an issue though. Such a
> > manager would have to spawn a process/thread to change the .max already.
>
> IMO memory.max is not something that has to be changed often. In most
> cases it will be set on container start and stay put throughout
> container lifetime. I can also imagine a case when memory.max will be
> changed for all containers when a container starts or stops, so as to
> guarantee that if <= N containers of M go mad, the system will survive.
> In any case, memory.max is reconfigured rarely, it rather belongs to the
> static configuration.
I see
> OTOH memory.low and memory.high are perfect to be changed dynamically,
> basing on containers' memory demand/pressure. A load manager might want
> to reconfigure these knobs say every 5 seconds. Spawning a thread per
> each container that often would look unnecessarily overcomplicated IMO.
The question however is whether we want to hide a potentially costly
operation and have it unaccounted and hidden in the kworker context.
I mean fork() + write() doesn't sound terribly complicated to me to have
a rather subtle behavior in the kernel.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-11 9:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-10 20:50 [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim when shrinking memory.high below usage Johannes Weiner
2016-03-11 7:55 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 8:34 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 9:13 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 9:53 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-03-11 11:49 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 13:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 14:01 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-11 14:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-11 14:46 ` Vladimir Davydov
2016-03-16 5:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-03-16 14:47 ` Vladimir Davydov
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=20160311095309.GF27701@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vdavydov@virtuozzo.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: 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).