[PATCH][RFC] memory.min_usage again
yamamoto at valinux.co.jp
Sun Sep 28 17:43:32 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'm not sure what you are worring about. can you explain a little more?
under the configuration, OOM is an expected behaviour.
> > 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" ?
are you suggesting ignoring mlock etc as well in that case?
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo at kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont at kvack.org"> email at kvack.org </a>
More information about the Containers