mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination
Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum protection threshold. However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour on second-pass low reclaim. This is because we scale starting at 0, not starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we end up with cliff behaviour. This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure starting at emin. You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and another cgroup without any emin. In both cgroups, set an elow larger than 50% of physical RAM. The one with emin will have less page scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower. Rebase on top of and apply the same idea as what was applied to handle cgroup_memory=disable properly for the original proportional patch http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201045711.GA18302@chrisdown.name ("mm, memcg: Handle cgroup_disable=memory when getting memcg protection"). Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190201051810.GA18895@chrisdown.nameSigned-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment