On 14/06/16 01:06, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi Minchan, > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> These day, there are many platforms available in the embedded market >> and sometime, they has more hints about workingset than kernel so >> they want to involve memory management more heavily like android's >> lowmemory killer and ashmem or user-daemon with lowmemory notifier. >> >> This patch adds add new method for userspace to manage memory >> efficiently via knob "/proc/<pid>/reclaim" so platform can reclaim >> any process anytime. > > Cgroups are our canonical way to control system resources on a per > process or group-of-processes level. I don't like the idea of adding > ad-hoc interfaces for single-use cases like this. > > For this particular case, you can already stick each app into its own > cgroup and use memory.force_empty to target-reclaim them. > > Or better yet, set the soft limits / memory.low to guide physical > memory pressure, once it actually occurs, toward the least-important > apps? We usually prefer doing work on-demand rather than proactively. > > The one-cgroup-per-app model would give Android much more control and > would also remove a *lot* of overhead during task switches, see this: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/19/358 Yes, I'd agree. cgroups can group many tasks, but the group size can be 1 as well. Could you try the same test with the recommended approach and see if it works as desired? Balbir Singh -- 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>