On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 08/15/2012 06:47 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > >>> That is not what the kernel does, in general. We assume that if he wants > >>> that memory and we can serve it, we should. Also, not all kernel memory > >>> is unreclaimable. We can shrink the slabs, for instance. Ying Han > >>> claims she has patches for that already... > >> > >> Are those patches somewhere around? > > > > You can already shrink the reclaimable slabs (dentries / inodes) via > > calls to the subsystem specific shrinkers. Did Ying Han do anything to > > go beyond that? > > > That is not enough for us. > We would like to make sure that the objects being discarded belong to > the memcg which is under pressure. We don't need to be perfect here, and > an occasional slip is totally fine. But if in general, shrinking from > memcg A will mostly wipe out objects from memcg B, we harmed the system > in return for nothing good. How can you figure out which objects belong to which memcg? The ownerships of dentries and inodes is a dubious concept already. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
