On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I plan to post that change on top of this, and this patch set does the
basic stuff to allow us doing further improvement.
I still like the design to skip over_soft_limit cgroups until certain
priority. One way to set up the soft limit for each cgroup is to base
on its actual working set size, and we prefer to punish A first with
lots of page cache ( cold file pages above soft limit) than reclaiming
anon pages from B ( below soft limit ). Unless we can not get enough
pages reclaimed from A, we will start reclaiming from B.
This might not be the ideal solution, but should be a good start. Thoughts?
--Ying
> --
> 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