lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg
On Fri 25-03-22 11:08:00, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:02 AM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:27 PM Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm confused by the aims of this patch. We already have proportional reclaim
> > > for memory.min and memory.low, and memory.high is already "proportional" by its
> > > nature to drive memory back down behind the configured threshold.
> > >
> > > Could you please be more clear about what you're trying to achieve and in what
> > > way the existing proportional reclaim mechanisms are insufficient for you?
>
> sorry for the bad formatting of previous reply, resend it in new format
>
> What I am trying to solve is that, the memcg's protection judgment[1]
> is based on a set of fixed value on current design, while the real
> scan and reclaim number[2] is based on the proportional min/low on the
> real memory usage which you mentioned above. Fixed value setting has
> some constraints as
> 1. It is an experienced value based on observation, which could be inaccurate.
> 2. working load is various from scenarios.
> 3. fixed value from [1] could be against the dynamic cgroup_size in [2].

Could you elaborate some more about those points. I guess providing an
example how you are using the new interface instead would be helpful.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-25 13:50    [W:0.061 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site