On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The "soft_limit" was introduced in memcg to support over-committing the >> memory resource on the host. Each cgroup configures its "hard_limit" where >> it will be throttled or OOM killed by going over the limit. However, the >> cgroup can go above the "soft_limit" as long as there is no system-wide >> memory contention. So, the "soft_limit" is the kernel mechanism for >> re-distributng system spare memory among cgroups. >> > s/re-distributng/re-distributing/ > >> This patch reworks the softlimit reclaim by hooking it into the new global >> reclaim scheme. So the global reclaim path including direct reclaim and >> background reclaim will respect the memcg softlimit. >> >> Note: >> 1. the new implementation of softlimit reclaim is rather simple and first >> step for further optimizations. there is no memory pressure balancing between >> memcgs for each zone, and that is something we would like to add as follow-ups. >> >> 2. this patch is slightly different from the last one posted from Johannes, >> > For those who want to see posts by Johannes, add links please. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/72382 If that is helpful, i will include it into the next post. --Ying > >> where his patch is closer to the reverted implementation by doing hierarchical >> reclaim for each selected memcg. However, that is not expected behavior from >> user perspective. Considering the following example: >> -- 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>