On Wed 15-06-11 15:48:25, Ying Han wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu 02-06-11 22:25:29, Ying Han wrote:
[...]
> > yes, this makes sense but I am not sure about the right(tm) value of the
> > MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY. 2 sounds too low. You would do quite a
> > lot of loops
> > (DEFAULT_PRIORITY-MEMCG_SOFTLIMIT_RECLAIM_PRIORITY) * zones * memcg_count
> > without any progress (assuming that all of them are under soft limit
> > which doesn't sound like a totally artificial configuration) until you
> > allow reclaiming from groups that are under soft limit. Then, when you
> > finally get to reclaiming, you scan rather aggressively.
>
> Fair enough, something smarter is definitely needed :)
>
> >
> > Maybe something like 3/4 of DEFAULT_PRIORITY? You would get 3 times
> > over all (unbalanced) zones and all cgroups that are above the limit
> > (scanning max{1/4096+1/2048+1/1024, 3*SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX} of the LRUs for
> > each cgroup) which could be enough to collect the low hanging fruit.
>
> Hmm, that sounds more reasonable than the initial proposal.
>
> For the same worst case where all the memcgs are blow their soft
> limit, we need to scan 3 times of total memcgs before actually doing
it is not scanning what we do. We just walk through all existing memcgs.
I think that the real issue here is how much we scan when we start
doing something useful. Maybe even DEFAULT_PRIORITY-3 is too much as
well. dunno.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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>