Ok, I’ll send the proposal later today. Thanks! Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:14, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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