From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude protection
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 13:52:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190530205210.GA165912@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190530065111.GC6703@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Michal Hocko writes:
>On Wed 29-05-19 23:44:53, Chris Down wrote:
>> Michal Hocko writes:
>> > Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong but the new
>> > calculation actually means that we always allow to scan even min
>> > protected memcgs right?
>>
>> We check if the memcg is min protected as a precondition for coming into
>> this function at all, so this generally isn't possible. See the
>> mem_cgroup_protected MEMCG_PROT_MIN check in shrink_node.
>
>OK, that is the part I was missing, I got confused by checking the min
>limit as well here. Thanks for the clarification. A comment would be
>handy or do we really need to consider min at all?
You mean as part of the reclaim pressure calculation? Yeah, we still need it,
because we might only set memory.min, but not set memory.low.
>> (Of course, it's possible we race with going within protection thresholds
>> again, but this patch doesn't make that any better or worse than the
>> previous situation.)
>
>Yeah.
>
>With the above clarified. The code the resulting code is much easier to
>follow and the overal logic makes sense to me.
>
>Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks for your thorough review! :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-30 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-28 21:30 [PATCH] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude protection Chris Down
2019-03-01 0:03 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-03-22 16:03 ` [PATCH REBASED] " Chris Down
2019-03-22 20:10 ` Andrew Morton
2019-03-22 22:00 ` Chris Down
2019-03-22 22:29 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-03-22 22:49 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-03-22 22:51 ` Chris Down
2019-03-22 22:49 ` Chris Down
2019-03-22 23:01 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-03-22 23:51 ` Chris Down
2019-05-30 6:12 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-30 6:44 ` Chris Down
2019-05-30 6:51 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-30 20:52 ` Chris Down [this message]
2019-05-31 6:28 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-31 19:27 ` Chris Down
2019-07-16 17:10 ` Johannes Weiner
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=20190530205210.GA165912@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--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).