On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
> > return mem_cgroup_from_id(id);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the
> > + * reclaim
> > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim
> > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim)
> > + *
> > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same
> > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including).
> > + */
> > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > + struct mem_cgroup *root)
>
> Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in
> the reclaim callsite? How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()?
I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The
generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is
not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit
and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be
renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@
but I do not have a strong preference.
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index c1cd99a5074b..0f428158254e 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
[...]
> > +static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> > +{
> > + if (!__shrink_zone(zone, sc, true)) {
> > + /*
> > + * First round of reclaim didn't find anything to reclaim
> > + * because of low limit protection so try again and ignore
> > + * the low limit this time.
> > + */
> > + __shrink_zone(zone, sc, false);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /* Returns true if compaction should go ahead for a high-order request */
>
> I would actually prefer not having a second round here, and make the
> low limit behave more like mlock memory. If there is no reclaimable
> memory, go OOM.
This was done in my previous attempt and I prefer OOM myself but it is
also true that starting with a more relaxed limit and adding an
option for hard guarantee later when we have a clear usecase is a better
approach. Although I can see potential in go-oom-rather-than-reclaim
configurations, usecases I am primarily interested in won't overcommit on
low_limit.
That being said, I like the idea of having the hard guarantee but I also
think it should be configurable. I can post those patches in this thread
but I feel it is too early as nobody has explicitly asked for this yet.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>