On Mon 23-09-19 21:04:59, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:32:31 +0800 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 19-09-19 21:13:32, Hillf Danton wrote: > > > > > > Currently memory controler is playing increasingly important role in > > > how memory is used and how pages are reclaimed on memory pressure. > > > > > > In daily works memcg is often created for critical tasks and their pre > > > configured memory usage is supposed to be met even on memory pressure. > > > Administrator wants to make it configurable that the pages consumed by > > > memcg-B can be reclaimed by page allocations invoked not by memcg-A but > > > by memcg-C. > > > > I am not really sure I understand the usecase well but this sounds like > > what memory reclaim protection in v2 is aiming at. > > Please describe the usecase. > A tipoint to the v2 stuff please. Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst > > > That configurability is addressed by adding priority for soft limit > > > reclaiming to make sure that no pages will be reclaimed from memcg of > > > higer priortiy in favor of memcg of lower priority. > > > > cgroup v1 interfaces are generally frozen and mostly aimed at backward > > compatibility. I am especially concerned about adding a new way to > > control soft limit which is known to be misdesigned and unfixable to > > behave reasonably. > > > An URL to the drafts/works about the new way in your git tree. Whut? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
