On Thu 15-06-23 21:09:16, 贺中坤 wrote: > > Let me check I understand. This patch on its own doesn't really do > > anything. You need the zs_malloc support implemented in patch 3 for this > > to have any effect. Even with that in place the zs_malloc doesn't follow > > the __GFP_ACCOUNT scheme we use for allocation tracking. Correct? > > > > Yes， I will use it on next version. OK, also make sure that the zsmalloc support is implemented before zram depends on it. > > I do not think this is answering my question. Or maybe I just > > misunderstand. Let me try again. Say you have a memcg under hard limit > > pressure so any further charge is going to fail. How can you reasonably > > implement zram back swapout if the memory is charged? > > > > Sorry, let me try to explain again. I have a memcg under hard limit pressure. > Any further charge will try to free memory and swapout to zram back which > is compressed and stored data in memory.so any further charge is not going > to fail. The charged memory is swapout to compressed memory step by > step, but the compressed memory is not charged to the original memcgroup. > So, Actual memory usage is already greater than the hard limit in some cases. > This pachset will charge the compressed memory to the original memcg, > limited by memory.max This is not really answering my question though. memcg under hard limit is not really my concern. This is a simpler case. I am not saying it doesn't need to get addresses but it is the memcg hard limited case that is much more interested. Because your charges are going to fail very likely and that would mean that swapout would fail AFAIU. If my understanding is wrong then it would really help to describe that case much more in the changelog. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
