On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 05:18:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton 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. > > 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. I am on it, but I don't think I can get them into shape and rudimentally benchmarked until the merge window is closed. So far I found nothing that would invalidate the design or have measurable impact on non-memcg systems. Then again, I suck at constructing tests, and have only limited machinery available. If people are interested and would like to help out verifying the changes, I can send an updated and documented version of the series that should be easier to understand. > 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 am a bit unsure as to why there is a sudden rush with those statistics now. -- 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>