On Mon 18-02-19 17:16:34, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:43 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.20-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let
> > > me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > commit a9a238e83fbb0df31c3b9b67003f8f9d1d1b6c96 upstream.
> > >
> > > This reverts commit 172b06c32b9497 ("mm: slowly shrink slabs with a
> > > relatively small number of objects").
> >
> > This revert will result in the slab caches of dead
> > cgroups with a small number of remaining objects never
> > getting reclaimed, which can be a memory leak in some
> > configurations.
> >
> > But hey, that's your tradeoff to make.
>
> That's what is in Linus's tree. Should we somehow diverge from that?
I believe we should start working on a memcg specific solution to
minimize regressions for others and start a more complex solution from
there.
Can we special case dead memcgs in the slab reclaim and reclaim more
aggressively?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
