On Mon, 9 May 2011 14:49:17 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon 09-05-11 12:18:17, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:10:47PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> [...]
> > What I am wondering, though: we already have a limit to push back
> > memcgs when we need memory, the soft limit. The 'need for memory' is
> > currently defined as global memory pressure, which we know may be too
> > late. The problem is not having no limit, the problem is that we want
> > to control the time of when this limit is enforced. So instead of
> > adding another limit, could we instead add a knob like
> >
> > memory.force_async_soft_reclaim
> >
> > that asynchroneously pushes back to the soft limit instead of having
> > another, separate limit to configure?
>
Hmm, ok to me.
> Sound much better than a separate watermark to me. I am just wondering
> how we would implement soft unlimited groups with background reclaim.
> Btw. is anybody relying on such configuration? To me it sounds like
> something should be either limited or unlimited and making it half of
> both is hacky.
I don't think of soft-unlimited configuration. I don't want to handle it
in some automatic way.
Anyway, I'll add
- _automatic_ background reclaim against the limit of memory, which works
regarless of softlimit.
- An interface for force softlimit.
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>