Hi Johannes,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:01:47PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:30:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40:32PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> > > As a result, I think there's still a need for relative priority
> > > between mem cgrou
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:48:55AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > A more useful metric for memory pressure at this point is quantifying
> > that time you spend thrashing: time the job spends in direct reclaim
> > and on the flipside time the job waits for recently evicted pages to
> > come back. Co
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:30:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40:32PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> > As a result, I think there's still a need for relative priority
> > between mem cgroups, not just an absolute limit.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> I agree with it.
>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40:32PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> 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
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 this is almost certainly
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
> A more useful metric for memory pressure at this point is quantifying
> that time you spend thrashing: time the job spends in direct reclaim
> and on the flipside time the job waits for recently evicted pages to
> come back. Combined, that gives you a good measure of overhead from
> memory pressu
Hi Tim,
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 from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
> patch with a lot of side effects.
>
> Currently, when an Androi
Sorry for the delay on my end as well. I realized that given multiple
equivalent prioritization implementations, my favorite would be the
one that provides the clearest signal to vmpressure. I've been
experimenting with different approaches to using memcg priority in
vmpressure, and I'm cautiously
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 from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
> patch with a lo
On 3/20/2017 8:53 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 07:28:53PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote:
>> From the discussions @ https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/3/752, I assume you are
>> trying
>> per-app memcg. We were trying to implement per app memory cgroups and were
>> encountering some
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:41:17PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:18:26AM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > However, I'm not sure your approach is good. It seems your approach just
> > > reclaims pages from
Hi Tim,
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:18:26AM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > However, I'm not sure your approach is good. It seems your approach just
> > reclaims pages from groups (DEF_PRIORITY - memcg->priority) >= sc->priority.
> > IOW, it is b
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> However, I'm not sure your approach is good. It seems your approach just
> reclaims pages from groups (DEF_PRIORITY - memcg->priority) >= sc->priority.
> IOW, it is based on *temporal* memory pressure fluctuation sc->priority.
>
> Rather than
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 07:28:53PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote:
> From the discussions @ https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/3/752, I assume you are
> trying
> per-app memcg. We were trying to implement per app memory cgroups and were
> encountering some issues
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/m
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:16:35PM -0700, Tim Murray wrote:
Hi Tim,
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
>> lowmemorykiller from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a
>> small patch with a lot of side effects.
>>
>> Currently, when an
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Tim Murray wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
> lowmemorykiller from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
> patch with a lot of side effects.
>
> Currently, when an Android device is under me
Hi Tim. Do you have a link to the new version lmkd?
On 03/18/2017 12:16 AM, Tim Murray wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
> lowmemorykiller from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
> patch with a lot of side effects.
>
> C
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
> lowmemorykiller from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
> patch with a lot of side effects.
>
> Currently, when an Android
Hi all,
I've been working to improve Android's memory management and drop
lowmemorykiller from the kernel, and I'd like to get some feedback on a small
patch with a lot of side effects.
Currently, when an Android device is under memory pressure, one of three things
will happen from kswapd:
1
20 matches
Mail list logo
