On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Glauber Costa 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. > > How can you figure out which objects belong to which memcg? The ownerships > of dentries and inodes is a dubious concept already. I figured it out based on the kernel slab accounting. obj->page->kmem_cache->memcg --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>