On Fri 25-03-22 11:08:00, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:02 AM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:27 PM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
