On Wed, 18 May 2011 08:49:19 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011 17:18:20 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 May 2011 17:05:02 -0700 > > Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:00:30PM -0700, Ying Han wrote: > > > > > This fixes the typo in the memory.stat including the following two > > > > > stats: > > > > > > > > > > $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/A/memory.stat > > > > > total_soft_steal 0 > > > > > total_soft_scan 0 > > > > > > > > > > And change it to: > > > > > > > > > > $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/A/memory.stat > > > > > total_soft_kswapd_steal 0 > > > > > total_soft_kswapd_scan 0 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I am currently proposing and working on a scheme that makes the soft > > > > limit not only a factor for global memory pressure, but for > > > > hierarchical reclaim in general, to prefer child memcgs during reclaim > > > > that are in excess of their soft limit. > > > > > > > > Because this means prioritizing memcgs over one another, rather than > > > > having explicit soft limit reclaim runs, there is no natural counter > > > > for pages reclaimed due to the soft limit anymore. > > > > > > > > Thus, for the patch that introduces this counter: > > > > > > > > Nacked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > This patch is fixing a typo of the stats being integrated into mmotm. Does > > > it make sense to fix the > > > existing stats first while we are discussing other approaches? > > > > > > > It would be quite bad to add new userspace-visible stats and to then > > take them away again. > > > yes. > > > But given that memcg-add-stats-to-monitor-soft_limit-reclaim.patch is > > queued for 2.6.39-rc1, we could proceed with that plan and then make > > sure that Johannes's changes are merged either prior to 2.6.40 or > > they are never merged at all. > > > > Or we could just leave out the stats until we're sure. Not having them > > for a while is not as bad as adding them and then removing them. > > > > I agree. I'm okay with removing them for a while. Johannes and Ying, could you > make a concensus ? IMHO, Johannes' work for making soft-limit co-operative with > hirerachical reclaim makes sense and agree to leave counter name as it is. > After reading threads, an another idea comes. Johannes' soft_limit just works when the hierarchy hit limit. I think pages are not reclaimed by soft_limit... it just reclaimed by the limit because of hierarchy. Right ? Hmm, I'm not sure using counter of softlimit or (new) counter of reclaimed-by-parent for that purpose. But I think this change of stat name is not necessary, anyway. 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>