On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:29:29 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew, > > This submission contains one small bug fix over the last one. I have been > testing it regularly and believe this is ready for merging. I have follow up > patches for this series, with a few improvements (namely: dynamic sized > list_lru node arrays, memcg flush-at-destruction, kmemcg shrinking setting > limit < usage). But since this series is already quite mature - and very > extensive, I don't believe that adding new patches would make them receive the > appropriate level of review. So please advise me if there is anything crucial > missing in here. Thanks! > > Hi, > > This patchset implements targeted shrinking for memcg when kmem limits are > present. So far, we've been accounting kernel objects but failing allocations > when short of memory. This is because our only option would be to call the > global shrinker, depleting objects from all caches and breaking isolation. > > The main idea is to associate per-memcg lists with each of the LRUs. The main > LRU still provides a single entry point and when adding or removing an element > from the LRU, we use the page information to figure out which memcg it belongs > to and relay it to the right list. > > Base work: > ========== > > Please note that this builds upon the recent work from Dave Chinner that > sanitizes the LRU shrinking API and make the shrinkers node aware. Node > awareness is not *strictly* needed for my work, but I still perceive it > as an advantage. The API unification is a major need, and I build upon it > heavily. That allows us to manipulate the LRUs without knowledge of the > underlying objects with ease. This time, I am including that work here as > a baseline. This patchset is huge. My overall take is that the patchset is massive and intrusive and scary :( I'd like to see more evidence that the memcg people (mhocko, hannes, kamezawa etc) have spent quality time reviewing and testing this code. There really is a lot of it! I haven't seen any show-stoppers yet so I guess I'll slam it all into -next and cross fingers. I would ask that the relevant developers set aside a solid day to read and runtime test it all. Realistically, it's likely to take considerably more time that that. I do expect that I'll drop the entire patchset again for the next version, if only because the next version should withdraw all the switch-random-code-to-xfs-coding-style changes... I'm thinking that we should approach this in two stages: all the new shrinker stuff separated from the memcg_kmem work. So we merge everything up to "shrinker: Kill old ->shrink API" and then continue to work on the memcg things? -- 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>