On Mon 18-02-19 18:57:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:38:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It's probably better to start a new thread to discuss this issue
agreed
> (btw, doesn't LSF/MM looks like the best place to do it? I can send a proposal).
I was about to do that if nobody else did.
dropped the rest of the email because this really deserves a new
discussion.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
