KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
quoted text
> Hi
> 
>> In my understanding, 2 checks we have to do.
>>
>> 1. When memcg finds PG_noreclaim page in its LRU, move it to noreclaim list of
>>    memcg.
>> 2. When PG_noreclaim page is moved back to generic LRU, memcg should move
>>    it on its list. (we have to add a hook somewhere.)
>>
>> But this may break current 'loose' synchronization between global LRU and
>> memcg's LRU. When PG_noreclaim page is put back into active/inactive LRU ?
>>
>> concerns are
>> A. how to implement '2'
> 
> I tried to implement it today.
> this patch is made against "[PATCH -mm 13/16] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure"
> 
> 
>> B. race condtions.
> 
> don't worry :)
> it isn't big problem.
> 
> global lru is reclaimbale and memcg lru is noreclaimable
> 	-> we can repair at move lru of shrink_[in]active_page().
> 
> global lru is noreclaimbale and memcg lru is reclaimable
> 	-> we can repair mem_cgroup_isolate_pages()
> 
> 

I've tried these patches and I still get OOM killed. I'll investigate a bit more.


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/