On Wed 25-09-19 10:35:30, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:23:35 +0000 from Roman Gushchin > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 03:30:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > But really, make sure you look into the existing feature set that memcg > > > v2 provides already and come back if you find it unsuitable and we can > > > move from there. Soft limit reclaim is dead and we should let it RIP. > > > > Can't agree more here. > > > > Cgroup v2 memory protection mechanisms (memory.low/min) should perfectly > > solve the described problem. If not, let's fix them rather than extend soft > > reclaim which is already dead. > > > Hehe, IIUC memory.low/min is essentially drawing a line that reclaimers > would try their best not to cross. Page preemption OTOH is near ten miles > away from that line though it is now on the shoulder of soft reclaiming. Dynamic low limit tuning would achieve exactly what you are after - aka prioritizing some memory consumers over others. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
