Hey, Greg. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 08:35:12PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > > As for how actually to clean up this yet another mess in memcg, I > > don't know. Maybe introduce completely new knobs - say, > > oom_threshold, reclaim_threshold, and reclaim_trigger - and alias > > hardlimit to oom_threshold and softlimit to recalim_trigger? BTW, > > "softlimit" should default to 0. Nothing else makes any sense. > > I agree that the hard limit could be called the oom_threshold. > > The meaning of the term reclaim_threshold is not obvious to me. I'd > prefer to call the soft limit a reclaim_target. System global > pressure can steal memory from a cgroup until its usage drops to the > soft limit (aka reclaim_target). Pressure will try to avoid stealing > memory below the reclaim target. The soft limit (reclaim_target) is > not checked until global pressure exists. Currently we do not have a > knob to set a reclaim_threshold, such that when usage exceeds the > reclaim_threshold async reclaim is queued. We are not discussing > triggering anything when soft limit is exceeded. Yeah, reclaim_target seems like a better name for it. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
