On 10/17/19 10:20 AM, Yang Shi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:26 AM Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >> My expectation (and I haven't confirmed this) is that the any memory use >> is accounted to the owning cgroup, whether it is DRAM or PMEM. memcg >> limit reclaim and global reclaim both end up doing migrations and >> neither should have a net effect on the counters. > > Yes, your expectation is correct. As long as PMEM is a NUMA node, it > is treated as regular memory by memcg. But, I don't think memcg limit > reclaim should do migration since limit reclaim is used to reduce > memory usage, but migration doesn't reduce usage, it just moves memory > from one node to the other. > > In my implementation, I just skip migration for memcg limit reclaim, > please see: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
Ahh, got it. That does make sense. I might have to steal your implementation.
