From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
"zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
ke wang <ke.wang@unisoc.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:49:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yj26d7eQ2DHXqiE4@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznGAmML4XB0t5jOZEoafQrFk=gXvP96Lmgh221Y22bUuyw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri 25-03-22 11:08:00, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:02 AM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:27 PM Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm confused by the aims of this patch. We already have proportional reclaim
> > > for memory.min and memory.low, and memory.high is already "proportional" by its
> > > nature to drive memory back down behind the configured threshold.
> > >
> > > Could you please be more clear about what you're trying to achieve and in what
> > > way the existing proportional reclaim mechanisms are insufficient for you?
>
> sorry for the bad formatting of previous reply, resend it in new format
>
> What I am trying to solve is that, the memcg's protection judgment[1]
> is based on a set of fixed value on current design, while the real
> scan and reclaim number[2] is based on the proportional min/low on the
> real memory usage which you mentioned above. Fixed value setting has
> some constraints as
> 1. It is an experienced value based on observation, which could be inaccurate.
> 2. working load is various from scenarios.
> 3. fixed value from [1] could be against the dynamic cgroup_size in [2].
Could you elaborate some more about those points. I guess providing an
example how you are using the new interface instead would be helpful.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-25 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-24 9:22 [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg zhaoyang.huang
2022-03-24 14:27 ` Chris Down
2022-03-24 16:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-03-25 3:10 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2022-03-25 3:02 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2022-03-25 3:08 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2022-03-25 12:49 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=Yj26d7eQ2DHXqiE4@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=ke.wang@unisoc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.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).