> But it seems to me worrying and fragile while they diverge in this way.
quoted text
> If the global has anon, active anon, file, active file and unevictable
> lrus for the page; and the memcg has anon, active anon, file, active file
> and unevictable lrus for the page cgroup; but different choices are made
> which to put on where, then we're heading for confusion and trouble.
>
> And when called, __mem_cgroup_move_lists tries to keep the activ-ity of
> the memcg lrus in step with the activ-ity of the global lrus, doesn't
> it?  So it's beyond my comprehension to start them off out of step.

Well...
you are right.

Hmm.. OK, I propse alternative way.

step1: commit this patch
step2: implement active/inactive anon balancing routine

	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>

Thank you for good patch.


btw, furtunately, memcg reclaim has some retry.
thus, lru imbalancing doesn't cause OOM, it only cause small performance degression.
IMHO your patch doesn't have any risk.



--
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/