Hey, On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote: > > A > > +-B (usage=2M lim=3M min=2M hosted_usage=2M) > > +-C (usage=0 lim=2M min=1M shared_usage=2M) > > +-D (usage=0 lim=2M min=1M shared_usage=2M) > > \-E (usage=0 lim=2M min=0) ... > Maybe, but I want to understand more about how pressure works in the > child. As C (or D) allocates non shared memory does it perform reclaim > to ensure that its (C.usage + C.shared_usage < C.lim). Given C's Yes. > shared_usage is linked into B.LRU it wouldn't be naturally reclaimable > by C. Are you thinking that charge failures on cgroups with non zero > shared_usage would, as needed, induce reclaim of parent's hosted_usage? Hmmm.... I'm not really sure but why not? If we properly account for the low protection when pushing inodes to the parent, I don't think it'd break anything. IOW, allow the amount beyond the sum of low limits to be reclaimed when one of the sharers is under pressure. 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
