On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:53:37AM -0700, Ying Han wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Here is a patch series that is a result of the memcg discussions on
> > LSF (memcg-aware global reclaim, global lru removal, struct
> > page_cgroup reduction, soft limit implementation) and the recent
> > feature discussions on linux-mm.
> >
> > The long-term idea is to have memcgs no longer bolted to the side of
> > the mm code, but integrate it as much as possible such that there is a
> > native understanding of containers, and that the traditional !memcg
> > setup is just a singular group. This series is an approach in that
> > direction.
This sounds like a good long term plan. Now I would wonder should we take it step by step by doing:
1. improving the existing soft_limit reclaim from RB-tree based to link-list based, also in a round_robin fashion.
We can keep the existing APIs but only changing the underlying implementation of mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim()
2. remove the global lru list after the first one being proved to be efficient.
3. then have better integration of memcg reclaim to the mm code.
--Ying
> >Actually, I meant the soft limit reclaim statistics. There is a
> > It is a rather early snapshot, WIP, barely tested etc., but I wanted
> > to get your opinions before further pursuing it. It is also part of
> > my counter-argument to the proposals of adding memcg-reclaim-related
> > user interfaces at this point in time, so I wanted to push this out
> > the door before things are merged into .40.
> >
>
> The memcg-reclaim-related user interface I assume was the watermark
> configurable tunable we were talking about in the per-memcg
> background reclaim patch. I think we got some agreement to remove
> the watermark tunable at the first step. But the newly added
> memory.soft_limit_async_reclaim as you proposed seems to be a usable
> interface.
comment about that in the 6/6 changelog.
Ok get it now. I will move the discussion to that thread.