mm: memcontrol: try harder to set a new memory.high
Setting a memory.high limit below the usage makes almost no effort to shrink the cgroup to the new target size. While memory.high is a "soft" limit that isn't supposed to cause OOM situations, we should still try harder to meet a user request through persistent reclaim. For example, after setting a 10M memory.high on an 800M cgroup full of file cache, the usage shrinks to about 350M: + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 841568256 + echo 10M + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 355729408 This isn't exactly what the user would expect to happen. Setting the value a few more times eventually whittles the usage down to what we are asking for: + echo 10M + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 104181760 + echo 10M + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 31801344 + echo 10M + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 10440704 To improve this, add reclaim retry loops to the memory.high write() callback, similar to what we do for memory.max, to make a reasonable effort that the usage meets the requested size after the call returns. Afterwards, a single write() to memory.high is enough in all but extreme cases: + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 841609216 + echo 10M + cat /cgroup/workingset/memory.current 10182656 790M is not a reasonable reclaim target to ask of a single reclaim invocation. And it wouldn't be reasonable to optimize the reclaim code for it. So asking for the full size but retrying is not a bad choice here: we express our intent, and benefit if reclaim becomes better at handling larger requests, but we also acknowledge that some of the deltas we can encounter in memory_high_write() are just too ridiculously big for a single reclaim invocation to manage. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191022201518.341216-2-hannes@cmpxchg.org Signed-off-by:Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Acked-by:
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent
7249c9f0
Please register or sign in to comment