On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:38:31PM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:12:10PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:14:49PM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:49:49PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Sorry still I didn't look at your implementation about cgroup part. > > > > but I had a question since long time ago. > > > > > > > > How can we can make sure false positive about zone and NUMA? > > > > I mean DMA zone is short in system so VM notify to user and user > > > > free all memory of NORMAL zone because he can't know what pages live > > > > in any zones. NUMA is ditto. > > > > > > Um, we count scans irrespective of zones or nodes, i.e. we sum all 'number > > > of scanned' and 'number of reclaimed' stats. So, it should not be a > > > problem, as I see it. > > > > Why is it no problem? For example, let's think of normal zone reclaim. > > Page allocator try to allocate pages from NORMAL zone to DMA zone fallback > > and your logic could trigger mpc_shrinker. So process A, B, C start to > > release thier freeable memory but unfortunately, freed pages are all > > HIGHMEM pages. Why should processes release memory unnecessary? > > Is there any method for proecess to detect such situation in user level > > before releasing the freeable memory? > > Ahh. You're talking about the shrinker interface. Yes, there is no way to > tell if the freed memory will be actually "released" (and if not, then > yes, we released it unnecessary). I don't tell about actually "released" or not. I assume application actually release pages but the pages would be another zones, NOT targetted zone from kernel. In case of that, kernel could ask continuously until target zone has enough free memory. > > But that's not only problem with NUMA or zones. Shared pages are in the > same boat, right? An app might free some memory, but as another process > might be still using it, we don't know whether our action helps or not. It's not what I meant. > > The situation is a little bit easier for the in-kernel shrinkers, since we > have more control over pages, but still, even for the kernel shrinkers, we > don't provide all the information (only gfpmask, which, I just looked into > the random user, drivers/gpu/drm/ttm, sometimes is not used). > > So, answering your question: no, I don't know how to solve it for the > userland. But I also don't think it's a big concern (especially if we make > it cgroup-aware -- this would be cgroup's worry then, i.e. we might > isolate task to only some nodes/zones, if we really care about precise > accounting?). But I'm surely open for ideas. :) My dumb idea is only notify to user when reclaim is triggered by __GFP_HIGHMEM|__GFP_MOVABLE which is most gfp_t for application memory. :) > > Thanks! > > Anton > > -- > 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> -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>