hi, > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:32:15 -0700 > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > >> hi, > > >> > > >> here's a patch to implement memory.min_usage, > > >> which controls the minimum memory usage for a cgroup. > > >> > > >> it works similarly to mlock; > > >> global memory reclamation doesn't reclaim memory from > > >> cgroups whose memory usage is below the value. > > >> setting it too high is a dangerous operation. > > >> > > > > Looking through the code I am a little worried, what if every cgroup is below > > minimum value and the system is under memory pressure, do we OOM, while we could > > have easily reclaimed? i'm not sure what you are worring about. can you explain a little more? under the configuration, OOM is an expected behaviour. > > > > I would prefer to see some heuristics around such a feature, mostly around the > > priority that do_try_to_free_pages() to determine how desperate we are for > > reclaiming memory. > > > Taking "priority" of memory reclaim path into account is good. > > == > static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan, > struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc, > int priority, int file) > == > How about ignore min_usage if "priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2" ? are you suggesting ignoring mlock etc as well in that case? YAMAMOTO Takashi > > > Thanks, > -Kame > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers