Ok, I’ll send the proposal later today.
Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:14, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon 18-02-19 18:57:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:38:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Mon 18-02-19 17:16:34, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:43 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> 4.20-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let
>>>>>> me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Dave Chinner <dchin...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit a9a238e83fbb0df31c3b9b67003f8f9d1d1b6c96 upstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This reverts commit 172b06c32b9497 ("mm: slowly shrink slabs with a
>>>>>> relatively small number of objects").
>>>>>
>>>>> This revert will result in the slab caches of dead
>>>>> cgroups with a small number of remaining objects never
>>>>> getting reclaimed, which can be a memory leak in some
>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> But hey, that's your tradeoff to make.
>>>>
>>>> That's what is in Linus's tree. Should we somehow diverge from that?
>>>
>>> I believe we should start working on a memcg specific solution to
>>> minimize regressions for others and start a more complex solution from
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Can we special case dead memcgs in the slab reclaim and reclaim more
>>> aggressively?
>>
>> It's probably better to start a new thread to discuss this issue
>
> agreed
>
>> (btw, doesn't LSF/MM looks like the best place to do it? I can send a
>> proposal).
>
> I was about to do that if nobody else did.
>
> dropped the rest of the email because this really deserves a new
> discussion.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
