On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:37:31PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Can you please cc me too when posting further patches? I kinda missed > the whole discussion upto this point. > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:29:11AM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > This commit implements David Rientjes' idea of mempressure cgroup. > > > > The main characteristics are the same to what I've tried to add to vmevent > > API; internally, it uses Mel Gorman's idea of scanned/reclaimed ratio for > > pressure index calculation. But we don't expose the index to the userland. > > Instead, there are three levels of the pressure: > > > > o low (just reclaiming, e.g. caches are draining); > > o medium (allocation cost becomes high, e.g. swapping); > > o oom (about to oom very soon). > > > > The rationale behind exposing levels and not the raw pressure index > > described here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/16/675 > > > > For a task it is possible to be in both cpusets, memcg and mempressure > > cgroups, so by rearranging the tasks it is possible to watch a specific > > pressure (i.e. caused by cpuset and/or memcg). > > So, cgroup is headed towards single hierarchy. Dunno how much it > would affect mempressure but it probably isn't wise to design with > focus on multiple hierarchies. Also, how are you implementing hierarchical behavior? All controllers should support hierarchy. Can you please explain how the interface would work in detail? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>