Michal Hocko said the following on 2012-1-6 18:12:
>> If there is something wrong, I think the bug will be in mem_cgroup_do_charge()
>> of mm/memcontrol.c
>>
>> 2210 ret = res_counter_charge(&memcg->res, csize, &fail_res);
>> 2211
>> 2212 if (likely(!ret)) {
...
>> 2221 flags |= MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP;
>> 2222 } else
>> 2223 mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res);
>>
>> When hit memory.limit_in_bytes, res_counter_charge() will return -ENOMEM,
>> this will execute line 2222: } else.
>> But I think when hit memory.limit_in_bytes, the function should determine further
>> to memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes.
>> This think is OK?
>
> I don't think so. We have an invariant (hard limit is "stronger" than
> memsw limit) memory.limit_in_bytes <= memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes so
> when we hit the hard limit we do not have to consider memsw because
> resource counter:
> a) we already have to do reclaim for hard limit
> b) we check whether we might swap out later on in
> mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim (root_memcg->memsw_is_minimum) so we
> will not end up swapping just to make hard limit ok and go over memsw
> limit.
>
> Please also note that we will retry charging after reclaim if there is a
> chance to meet the limit.
> Makes sense?
Yeah.
But I want to test memory.memsw.failcnt is nonzero, how steps?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Peng
--
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>