[PATCH][RFC] memory.min_usage again
kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Fri Sep 12 02:46:30 PDT 2008
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:32:15 -0700
Balbir Singh <balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > hi,
> >> hi,
> >> here's a patch to implement memory.min_usage,
> >> which controls the minimum memory usage for a cgroup.
> >> it works similarly to mlock;
> >> global memory reclamation doesn't reclaim memory from
> >> cgroups whose memory usage is below the value.
> >> setting it too high is a dangerous operation.
> Looking through the code I am a little worried, what if every cgroup is below
> minimum value and the system is under memory pressure, do we OOM, while we could
> have easily reclaimed?
> I would prefer to see some heuristics around such a feature, mostly around the
> priority that do_try_to_free_pages() to determine how desperate we are for
> reclaiming memory.
Taking "priority" of memory reclaim path into account is good.
static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
int priority, int file)
How about ignore min_usage if "priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2" ?
More information about the Containers