On Fri 13-01-12 16:50:01, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:04:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-01-12 16:02:52, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > > +bool mem_cgroup_over_softlimit(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > +{
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (!root)
> > > + root = root_mem_cgroup;
> > > +
> > > + for (; memcg; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) {
> > > + /* root_mem_cgroup does not have a soft limit */
> > > + if (memcg == root_mem_cgroup)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&memcg->res))
> > > + return true;
> > > + if (memcg == root)
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> >
> > Well, this might be little bit tricky. We do not check whether memcg and
> > root are in a hierarchy (in terms of use_hierarchy) relation.
> >
> > If we are under global reclaim then we iterate over all memcgs and so
> > there is no guarantee that there is a hierarchical relation between the
> > given memcg and its parent. While, on the other hand, if we are doing
> > memcg reclaim then we have this guarantee.
> >
> > Why should we punish a group (subtree) which is perfectly under its soft
> > limit just because some other subtree contributes to the common parent's
> > usage and makes it over its limit?
> > Should we check memcg->use_hierarchy here?
>
> We do, actually. parent_mem_cgroup() checks the res_counter parent,
> which is only set when ->use_hierarchy is also set.
Of course I am blind.. We do not setup res_counter parent for
!use_hierarchy case. Sorry for noise...
Now it makes much better sense. I was wondering how !use_hierarchy could
ever work, this should be a signal that I am overlooking something
terribly.
[...]
> > > @@ -2121,8 +2121,16 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > > .mem_cgroup = memcg,
> > > .zone = zone,
> > > };
> > > + int epriority = priority;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Put more pressure on hierarchies that exceed their
> > > + * soft limit, to push them back harder than their
> > > + * well-behaving siblings.
> > > + */
> > > + if (mem_cgroup_over_softlimit(root, memcg))
> > > + epriority = 0;
> >
> > This sounds too aggressive to me. Shouldn't we just double the pressure
> > or something like that?
>
> That's the historical value. When I tried priority - 1, it was not
> aggressive enough.
Probably because we want to reclaim too much. Maybe we should do
reduce nr_to_reclaim (ugly) or reclaim only overlimit groups until certain
priority level as Ying suggested in her patchset.
--
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@xxxxxxxxx. 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>