KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:24:42 +0400
Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch adds mem_cgroup->inactive_ratio calculated from hierarchical memory limit.
It updated at each limit change before shrinking cgroup to this new limit.
Ratios for all child cgroups are updated too, because parent limit can affect them.
Update precedure can be greatly optimized if its performance becomes the problem.
Inactive ratio for unlimited or huge limit does not matter, because we'll never hit it.
At global reclaim always use global ratio from zone->inactive_ratio.
At mem-cgroup reclaim use inactive_ratio from target memory cgroup,
this is cgroup which hit its limit and cause this reclaimer invocation.
Thus, global memory reclaimer will try to keep ratio for all lru lists in zone
above one mark, this guarantee that total ratio in this zone will be above too.
Meanwhile mem-cgroup will do the same thing for its lru lists in all zones, and
for all lru lists in all sub-cgroups in hierarchy.
Also this patch removes some redundant code.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hmm, the main purpose of this patch is to remove calculation per get_scan_ratio() ?
Technically, it was preparation for "mm: unify inactive_list_is_low()" from "memory book keeping" patchset.
So, actually its main purpose is moving all active/inactive size calculation to mm/vmscan.c
Also I trying to figure out most sane logic for inactive_ratio calculation,
currently global memory reclaimer sometimes uses memcg-calculated ratio, it looks strange.
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 16 ++------
mm/memcontrol.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
mm/vmscan.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
unsigned long long val)
{
<cut>
@@ -3422,6 +3416,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
else
memcg->memsw_is_minimum = false;
}
+ mem_cgroup_update_inactive_ratio(memcg, val);
mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
if (!ret)
@@ -3439,6 +3434,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
if (!ret&& enlarge)
memcg_oom_recover(memcg);
+ if (ret) {
+ mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
+ mem_cgroup_update_inactive_ratio(memcg, RESOURCE_MAX);
+ mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
+ }
Why RESOUECE_MAX ?
resize was failed, so we return back normal value calculated from the current limit.
target == RESOURCE_MAX isn't clip limit: min(RESOURCE_MAX, limit) == limit
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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>