On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 05:26:20PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> If such actual soft limit is desired (I don't know, it just seems like >> a very fundamental / logical feature to me), please don't try to >> somehow overload "softlimit". They are two fundamentally different >> knobs, both make sense in their own ways, and when you stop confusing >> the two, there's nothing ambiguous about what what each knob means in >> hierarchical situations. This goes the same for the "untrusted" flag >> Ying told me, which seems like another confused way to overload two >> meanings onto "softlimit". Don't overload! > > As for how actually to clean up this yet another mess in memcg, I > don't know. Maybe introduce completely new knobs - say, > oom_threshold, reclaim_threshold, and reclaim_trigger - and alias > hardlimit to oom_threshold and softlimit to recalim_trigger? BTW, > "softlimit" should default to 0. Nothing else makes any sense. I agree that the hard limit could be called the oom_threshold. The meaning of the term reclaim_threshold is not obvious to me. I'd prefer to call the soft limit a reclaim_target. System global pressure can steal memory from a cgroup until its usage drops to the soft limit (aka reclaim_target). Pressure will try to avoid stealing memory below the reclaim target. The soft limit (reclaim_target) is not checked until global pressure exists. Currently we do not have a knob to set a reclaim_threshold, such that when usage exceeds the reclaim_threshold async reclaim is queued. We are not discussing triggering anything when soft limit is exceeded. -- 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>