On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:28:35PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:23:53AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > It's true that both the shrinking of the active list and subsequent > > activations to regrow it will reduce the number of actionable > > refaults, and so it wouldn't be unreasonable to also shrink shadow > > nodes when the active list shrinks. > > > > However, I think these are too many assumptions to encode in the > > shrinker, because it is only meant to prevent a worst-case explosion > > of radix tree nodes. I'd prefer it to be dumb and conservative. > > > > Could we instead go with the current usage of the memcg? Whether > > reclaim happens globally or due to the memory limit, the usage at the > > time of reclaim gives a good idea of the memory is available to the > > group. But it's making less assumptions about the internal composition > > of the memcg's memory, and the consequences associated with that. > > But that would likely result in wasting a considerable chunk of memory > for stale shadow nodes in case file caches constitute only a small part > of memcg memory consumption, which isn't good IMHO. Hm, that's probably true. But I think it's a separate patch at this point - going from total memory to the cache portion for overhead reasons - that shouldn't be conflated with the memcg awareness patch. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>