lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: memcontrol: recursive memory protection
Date
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:07:15PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Changes since v1:
> - improved Changelogs based on the discussion with Roman. Thanks!
> - fix div0 when recursive & fixed protection is combined
> - fix an unused compiler warning
>
> The current memory.low (and memory.min) semantics require protection
> to be assigned to a cgroup in an untinterrupted chain from the
> top-level cgroup all the way to the leaf.
>
> In practice, we want to protect entire cgroup subtrees from each other
> (system management software vs. workload), but we would like the VM to
> balance memory optimally *within* each subtree, without having to make
> explicit weight allocations among individual components. The current
> semantics make that impossible.
>
> This patch series extends memory.low/min such that the knobs apply
> recursively to the entire subtree. Users can still assign explicit
> protection to subgroups, but if they don't, the protection set by the
> parent cgroup will be distributed dynamically such that children
> compete freely - as if no memory control were enabled inside the
> subtree - but enjoy protection from neighboring trees.
>
> Patch #1 fixes an existing bug that can give a cgroup tree more
> protection than it should receive as per ancestor configuration.
>
> Patch #2 simplifies and documents the existing code to make it easier
> to reason about the changes in the next patch.
>
> Patch #3 finally implements recursive memory protection semantics.
>
> Because of a risk of regressing legacy setups, the new semantics are
> hidden behind a cgroup2 mount option, 'memory_recursiveprot'.

I really like the new semantics: it looks nice and doesn't require
any new magic values aka "bypass", which have been discussed previously.
The ability to disable the protection for a particular cgroup inside
the protected sub-tree looks overvalued: I don't have any practical
example when it makes any sense. So it's totally worth it to sacrifice
it. Thank you for adding comments to the changelog!

Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
for the series.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-20 05:07    [W:0.353 / U:1.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site