On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/15/2012 06:47 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>>> That is not what the kernel does, in general. We assume that if he wants >>>> that memory and we can serve it, we should. Also, not all kernel memory >>>> is unreclaimable. We can shrink the slabs, for instance. Ying Han >>>> claims she has patches for that already... >>> >>> Are those patches somewhere around? >> >> You can already shrink the reclaimable slabs (dentries / inodes) via >> calls to the subsystem specific shrinkers. Did Ying Han do anything to >> go beyond that? >> > That is not enough for us. > We would like to make sure that the objects being discarded belong to > the memcg which is under pressure. We don't need to be perfect here, and > an occasional slip is totally fine. But if in general, shrinking from > memcg A will mostly wipe out objects from memcg B, we harmed the system > in return for nothing good. Correct. For example, we have per-superblock shrinker today for vfs caches. That is not enough since we need to isolate the dentry caches per-memcg basis. --Ying > > -- > 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/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>