On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:03 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> I might misunderstand this but is the issue here actually throttling
> of the sheer number of trace records or tracing large enough changes
> to RSS that user might care about? Small changes happen all the time
> but we are likely not inte
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:37 PM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
> Or Is the objective here is reduce the number of processes which get killed by
> lmkd by triggering swapping for the unused memory (user hinted) sooner so that
> they dont get picked by lmkd. Under utilization for zram hardware is a con
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:17:43AM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> > Knowing whether a SIGKILL'd process has finished reclaiming is as far
> > as I know not possible without something like procfds. That's where
&
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:37 AM Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:05:32AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The only way to control the OOM behavior pro-actively is to throttle
> > allocation speed. We have memcg high limit for that purpose. Along with
> > PSI, I can imagine a reas
I've looked into this a fair bit on the Android side, so I can provide
some context. There are two main reasons why Android gathers PSS
information:
1. Android devices can show the user the amount of memory used per
application via the settings app. This is a less important use case.
2. We log PSS
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Tim Murray wrote:
> The current critical vmpressure event
> hasn't been that successful in avoiding oom-killer (on 3.18, at
> least)--I've been able to get oom-killer to trigger without a
> vmpressure event.
Looked at this some more, and th
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> In cgroup2, we've added a memory.low knob, where groups within their
> memory.low setting are not reclaimed.
>
> You can set that knob on foreground groups to the amount of memory
> they need to function properly, and set it to 0 on backgro
Minchan Kim wrote:
> To memcg maintainer,
>
> Could you comment about this topic?
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:16:35PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
>> lowmemorykiller fr
right
thing in terms of memory.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:16:35PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
>> lowmemor
ward but have not yet rigorously
tested it at TOT, since I don't have an Android test setup running TOT. While
I'm getting my tests ported over, I would like some feedback on adding another
tunable as well as what the tunable's interface should be--I really don't like
the 0-10
roups
before looking at higher-priority cgroups.
Signed-off-by: Tim Murray
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 20 +++-
mm/memcontrol.c| 33 +
mm/vmscan.c| 3 ++-
3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --
cgroup hierarchies, etc. At this
stage, I'm mainly wondering if the broader community thinks
prioritized reclaim is a viable direction.
Thanks for any feedback you can provide.
Tim
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Rom Lemarchand wrote:
> +surenb
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:38 A
12 matches
Mail list logo
