On 11/16/2012 06:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 16-11-12 16:21:59, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/11/16 16:11), Glauber Costa wrote: >>> On 11/16/2012 09:07 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >>>> (2012/11/15 22:47), Glauber Costa wrote: >>>>> On 11/15/2012 01:41 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >>>>>> (2012/11/15 11:54), Glauber Costa wrote: >>>>>>> The idea is to synchronously do it, leaving it up to the shrinking >>>>>>> facilities in vmscan.c and/or others. Not actively retrying shrinking >>>>>>> may leave the caches alive for more time, but it will remove the ugly >>>>>>> wakeups. One would argue that if the caches have free objects but are >>>>>>> not being shrunk, it is because we don't need that memory yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> >>>>>>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree this patch but can we have a way to see the number of unaccounted >>>>>> zombie cache usage for debugging ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>> Any particular interface in mind ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm, it's debug interface and having cgroup file may be bad..... >>>> If it can be seen in bytes or some, /proc/vmstat ? >>>> >>>> out_of_track_slabs xxxxxxx. hm ? >>>> >>> >>> I particularly think that, being this a debug interface, it is also >>> useful to have an indication of which caches are still in place. This is >>> because the cache itself, is the best indication we have about the >>> specific workload that may be keeping it in memory. >>> >>> I first thought debugfs could help us probing useful information out of >>> it, but given all the abuse people inflicted in debugfs... maybe we >>> could have a file in the root memcg with that information for all >>> removed memcgs? If we do that, we can go further and list the memcgs >>> that are pending due to memsw as well. memory.dangling_memcgs ? >>> >> >> Hm, I'm ok with it... others ? > > What about memory.kmem.dangling_caches? > If that is what it does, sure. But as I said, kmem is not the only thing that can keep caches in memory. If we're going for this, maybe we should be more comprehensive and show it all. -- 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>