On Mon 19-05-14 17:50:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 19-05-14 16:02:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
> [...]
> > > -- First, demonstrate that just rmdir, without memory.force_empty,
> > >temporarily hides reparented child memory stats.
> > >
> > > $
On Mon 19-05-14 17:50:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 19-05-14 16:02:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
[...]
-- First, demonstrate that just rmdir, without memory.force_empty,
temporarily hides reparented child memory stats.
$ /test
On Mon 19-05-14 16:02:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
[...]
> > -- First, demonstrate that just rmdir, without memory.force_empty,
> >temporarily hides reparented child memory stats.
> >
> > $ /test
> > p/memory.stat:rss 0
> > p/memory.stat:total_rss
On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
> On Tue, May 13 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > If somebody really cares because reparented pages, which would be
> > dropped otherwise, push out more important ones then we should fix the
> > reparenting code and put pages to the tail.
>
> I
On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
On Tue, May 13 2014, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
[...]
If somebody really cares because reparented pages, which would be
dropped otherwise, push out more important ones then we should fix the
reparenting code and put pages to the tail.
On Mon 19-05-14 16:02:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 16-05-14 15:00:16, Greg Thelen wrote:
[...]
-- First, demonstrate that just rmdir, without memory.force_empty,
temporarily hides reparented child memory stats.
$ /test
p/memory.stat:rss 0
p/memory.stat:total_rss 69632
On Tue, May 13 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
> reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
> justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
> also later when there is a memory
On Tue, May 13 2014, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
also later when there is a
On Tue 13-05-14 14:39:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:29:16 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
> > reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
> > justified because reparented pages which
On Tue 13-05-14 14:39:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:29:16 +0200 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages
On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:29:16 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote:
> force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
> reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
> justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
> also later when there is
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
also later when there is a memory pressure on the parent level.
Mark the knob
On Tue 13-05-14 09:16:56, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 05:34:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > >From 6f2a33df7750f0794b03f7a85aba02a4e631f2a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Michal Hocko
> > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:20:46 +0200
> > Sub
re the roll out of
> > unified hierarchy, but let's make sure it's also marked with
> > CFTYPE_INSANE. It's easy to remove the flag afterwards. The other
> > way isn't, so...
> ---
> >From 6f2a33df7750f0794b03f7a85aba02a4e631f2a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: M
the flag afterwards. The other
way isn't, so...
---
From 6f2a33df7750f0794b03f7a85aba02a4e631f2a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:20:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memcg: deprecate memory.force_empty knob
force_empty has been introduced primarily
: deprecate memory.force_empty knob
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
also later when there is a memory pressure
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
also later when there is a memory pressure on the parent level.
Mark the knob
On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:29:16 +0200 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't sound fully
justified because reparented pages which are not in use can be reclaimed
also later
that but
> > I would like to see people complaining before.
>
> Oh sure, if you wanna see people complaining before the roll out of
> unified hierarchy, but let's make sure it's also marked with
> CFTYPE_INSANE. It's easy to remove the flag afterwards. The other
> way
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 05:20:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-05-14 11:00:14, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > @@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
> > > cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> > >
> > >
On Mon 12-05-14 11:00:14, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
> > cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> >
> > if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > +
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
> cgroup_subsys_state *css,
>
> if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> return -EINVAL;
> + pr_info("%s (%d): memory.force_empty is deprecated
And this one for deprecating force_empty.
---
>From 9bb3119900baa07b92fac932991cf94dd930f907 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:20:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memcg: deprecate memory.force_empty knob
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory bef
And this one for deprecating force_empty.
---
From 9bb3119900baa07b92fac932991cf94dd930f907 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:20:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memcg: deprecate memory.force_empty knob
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
cgroup_subsys_state *css,
if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
return -EINVAL;
+ pr_info(%s (%d): memory.force_empty is deprecated and will
On Mon 12-05-14 11:00:14, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
cgroup_subsys_state *css,
if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
return -EINVAL;
+ pr_info(%s
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 05:20:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 12-05-14 11:00:14, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -4793,6 +4793,10 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct
cgroup_subsys_state *css,
if
6f2a33df7750f0794b03f7a85aba02a4e631f2a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:20:46 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memcg: deprecate memory.force_empty knob
force_empty has been introduced primarily to drop memory before it gets
reparented on the group removal. This alone doesn't
28 matches
Mail list logo
