[1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
user-space.
This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
'memory.reclaim' was ?
With the patch following command flow is expected:
# echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
# cat memory.reclaim
scanned 76
reclaimed 32
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 15 ++++++++++++---
mm/memcontrol.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
index 27ebef2485a3..44610165261d 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
@@ -1209,18 +1209,27 @@ PAGE_SIZE multiple when read back.
utility is limited to providing the final safety net.
memory.reclaim
- A write-only nested-keyed file which exists for all cgroups.
+ A nested-keyed file which exists for all cgroups.
- This is a simple interface to trigger memory reclaim in the
- target cgroup.
+ This is a simple interface to trigger memory reclaim and retrieve
+ reclaim stats in the target cgroup.
This file accepts a single key, the number of bytes to reclaim.
No nested keys are currently supported.
+ Reading the file returns number of pages scanned and number of
+ pages reclaimed from the memcg. This information fetched from
+ vmpressure info associated with each cgroup.
+
Example::
echo "1G" > memory.reclaim
+ cat memory.reclaim
+
+ scanned 78
+ reclaimed 30
+
The interface can be later extended with nested keys to
configure the reclaim behavior. For example, specify the
type of memory to reclaim from (anon, file, ..).
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 2e2bfbed4717..9e43580a8726 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6423,6 +6423,19 @@ static ssize_t memory_oom_group_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
return nbytes;
}
+static int memory_reclaim_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_seq(m);
+ struct vmpressure *vmpr = memcg_to_vmpressure(memcg);
+
+ spin_lock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
+ seq_printf(m, "scanned %lu\nreclaimed %lu\n",
+ vmpr->scanned, vmpr->reclaimed);
+ spin_unlock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
{
@@ -6525,6 +6538,7 @@ static struct cftype memory_files[] = {
.name = "reclaim",
.flags = CFTYPE_NS_DELEGATABLE,
.write = memory_reclaim,
+ .seq_show = memory_reclaim_show,
},
{ } /* terminate */
};
--
2.35.1
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:08:15AM +0530, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
> user-space.
>
> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>
> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>
> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>
> # cat memory.reclaim
> scanned 76
> reclaimed 32
>
Yosry already mentioned the race issue with the implementation and I
would prefer we don't create any new dependency on vmpressure which I
think we should deprecate.
Anyways my question is how are you planning to use these metrics i.e.
scanned & reclaimed? I wonder if the data you are interested in can be
extracted without a stable interface. Have you tried BPF way to get
these metrics? We already have a tracepoint in vmscan tracing the
scanned and reclaimed.
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this patch,
Greg Thelen <[email protected]> writes:
> Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
>> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
>> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
>> user-space.
>>
>> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
>> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
>> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
>> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
>> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>>
>> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>>
>> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>>
>> # cat memory.reclaim
>> scanned 76
>> reclaimed 32
>
> I certainly appreciate the ability for shell scripts to demonstrate
> cgroup operations with textual interfaces, but such interface seem like
> they are optimized for ease of use by developers.
>
Agree that directly exposing nr_scanned/reclaimed might not be a useful
for users and certainly looks like a dev interface
> I wonder if for runtime production use an ioctl or netlink interface has
> been considered for cgroup? I don't think there are any yet, but such
> approaches seem like a more straightforward ways to get nontrivial
> input/outputs from a single call (e.g. like this proposal). And they
> have the benefit of not requiring ascii serialization/parsing overhead.
I think to a large degree eBPF and existing static tracepoints in vmscan
can provide access to these metrics as Shakeel Bhat pointed to earlier.
<snip>
--
Cheers
~ Vaibhav
Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]> wrote:
> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
> user-space.
>
> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>
> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>
> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>
> # cat memory.reclaim
> scanned 76
> reclaimed 32
I certainly appreciate the ability for shell scripts to demonstrate
cgroup operations with textual interfaces, but such interface seem like
they are optimized for ease of use by developers.
I wonder if for runtime production use an ioctl or netlink interface has
been considered for cgroup? I don't think there are any yet, but such
approaches seem like a more straightforward ways to get nontrivial
input/outputs from a single call (e.g. like this proposal). And they
have the benefit of not requiring ascii serialization/parsing overhead.
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
> Cc: Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Jain <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 15 ++++++++++++---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> index 27ebef2485a3..44610165261d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> @@ -1209,18 +1209,27 @@ PAGE_SIZE multiple when read back.
> utility is limited to providing the final safety net.
>
> memory.reclaim
> - A write-only nested-keyed file which exists for all cgroups.
> + A nested-keyed file which exists for all cgroups.
>
> - This is a simple interface to trigger memory reclaim in the
> - target cgroup.
> + This is a simple interface to trigger memory reclaim and retrieve
> + reclaim stats in the target cgroup.
>
> This file accepts a single key, the number of bytes to reclaim.
> No nested keys are currently supported.
>
> + Reading the file returns number of pages scanned and number of
> + pages reclaimed from the memcg. This information fetched from
> + vmpressure info associated with each cgroup.
> +
> Example::
>
> echo "1G" > memory.reclaim
>
> + cat memory.reclaim
> +
> + scanned 78
> + reclaimed 30
> +
> The interface can be later extended with nested keys to
> configure the reclaim behavior. For example, specify the
> type of memory to reclaim from (anon, file, ..).
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 2e2bfbed4717..9e43580a8726 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -6423,6 +6423,19 @@ static ssize_t memory_oom_group_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> return nbytes;
> }
>
> +static int memory_reclaim_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_seq(m);
> + struct vmpressure *vmpr = memcg_to_vmpressure(memcg);
> +
> + spin_lock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
> + seq_printf(m, "scanned %lu\nreclaimed %lu\n",
> + vmpr->scanned, vmpr->reclaimed);
> + spin_unlock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
> {
> @@ -6525,6 +6538,7 @@ static struct cftype memory_files[] = {
> .name = "reclaim",
> .flags = CFTYPE_NS_DELEGATABLE,
> .write = memory_reclaim,
> + .seq_show = memory_reclaim_show,
> },
> { } /* terminate */
> };
On Thu 19-05-22 04:08:15, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
> user-space.
>
> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>
> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>
> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>
> # cat memory.reclaim
> scanned 76
> reclaimed 32
Why cannot you use memory.stat? Sure it would require to iterate over
the reclaimed hierarchy but the information about scanned and reclaimed
pages as well as other potentially useful stats is there.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this patch,
Shakeel Butt <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:08:15AM +0530, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
>> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
>> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
>> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
>> user-space.
>>
>> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
>> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
>> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
>> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
>> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>>
>> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>>
>> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>>
>> # cat memory.reclaim
>> scanned 76
>> reclaimed 32
>>
>
> Yosry already mentioned the race issue with the implementation and I
> would prefer we don't create any new dependency on vmpressure which I
> think we should deprecate.
Ok,
>
> Anyways my question is how are you planning to use these metrics i.e.
> scanned & reclaimed? I wonder if the data you are interested in can be
> extracted without a stable interface. Have you tried BPF way to get
> these metrics? We already have a tracepoint in vmscan tracing the
> scanned and reclaimed.
>
Agree that there are enough static trace_mm_vmscan_ tracepoints in
vmscan to get that info.
Also agree that exposing nr_scanned/nr_reclaimed directly to userspace may not
be a good idea but knowing the amount of memory reclaimed might be
useful.
With user-space triggered proactive reclaim user-space code can try to
write a certain value to "memory.reclaim" in a loop till it returns
'-EBUSY'.
Right now there is no direct way for it to get feedback on the progress
of the requested reclaim. Providing a stable interface to ascertain the
progress of reclaim lets that userspace provide smaller values for
proactive reclaim
--
Cheers
~ Vaibhav
Thanks for looking into this patch Michal,
Michal Hocko <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu 19-05-22 04:08:15, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
>> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
>> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
>> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
>> user-space.
>>
>> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
>> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
>> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
>> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
>> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
>>
>> With the patch following command flow is expected:
>>
>> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
>>
>> # cat memory.reclaim
>> scanned 76
>> reclaimed 32
>
> Why cannot you use memory.stat? Sure it would require to iterate over
> the reclaimed hierarchy but the information about scanned and reclaimed
> pages as well as other potentially useful stats is there.
Agree that "memory.stat" is more suitable for scanned/reclaimed stats as
it already is exposing bunch of other stats.
The discussion on this patch however seems to have split into two parts:
1. Is it a good idea to expose nr_scanned/nr_reclaimed to users-space
and if yes how ?
IMHO, I think it will be better to expose this info via 'memory.stat' as it
can be useful insight into the reclaim efficiency and vmpressure.
2. Will it be useful to provide feedback to userspace when it writes to
'memory.reclaim' on how much memory has been reclaimed ?
IMHO, this will be a useful feeback to userspace to better adjust future
proactive reclaim requests via 'memory.reclaim'
--
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
--
Cheers
~ Vaibhav
On Fri 20-05-22 10:45:43, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking into this patch Michal,
>
> Michal Hocko <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu 19-05-22 04:08:15, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
> >> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
> >> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
> >> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
> >> user-space.
> >>
> >> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
> >> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
> >> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
> >> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
> >> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
> >>
> >> With the patch following command flow is expected:
> >>
> >> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
> >>
> >> # cat memory.reclaim
> >> scanned 76
> >> reclaimed 32
> >
> > Why cannot you use memory.stat? Sure it would require to iterate over
> > the reclaimed hierarchy but the information about scanned and reclaimed
> > pages as well as other potentially useful stats is there.
>
> Agree that "memory.stat" is more suitable for scanned/reclaimed stats as
> it already is exposing bunch of other stats.
>
> The discussion on this patch however seems to have split into two parts:
>
> 1. Is it a good idea to expose nr_scanned/nr_reclaimed to users-space
> and if yes how ?
>
> IMHO, I think it will be better to expose this info via 'memory.stat' as it
> can be useful insight into the reclaim efficiency and vmpressure.
We already do that with some more metrics
pgrefill 9801926
pgscan 27329762
pgsteal 22715987
pgactivate 250691267
pgdeactivate 9521843
pglazyfree 0
pglazyfreed 0
> 2. Will it be useful to provide feedback to userspace when it writes to
> 'memory.reclaim' on how much memory has been reclaimed ?
>
> IMHO, this will be a useful feeback to userspace to better adjust future
> proactive reclaim requests via 'memory.reclaim'
How precise this information should be? A very simplistic approach would
be
cp memory.stat stats.before
echo $WHATEVER > memory.reclaim
cp memory.stat stats.after
This will obviously contain also activity outside of the explicitly
triggered reclaim (racing background/direct reclaim) but isn't that what
actually matters? Are there any cases where the only metric you care
about is the triggered reclaim in isolation?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 12:29 AM Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri 20-05-22 10:45:43, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for looking into this patch Michal,
> >
> > Michal Hocko <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > On Thu 19-05-22 04:08:15, Vaibhav Jain wrote:
> > >> [1] Provides a way for user-space to trigger proactive reclaim by introducing
> > >> a write-only memcg file 'memory.reclaim'. However reclaim stats like number
> > >> of pages scanned and reclaimed is still not directly available to the
> > >> user-space.
> > >>
> > >> This patch proposes to extend [1] to make the memcg file 'memory.reclaim'
> > >> readable which returns the number of pages scanned / reclaimed during the
> > >> reclaim process from 'struct vmpressure' associated with each memcg. This should
> > >> let user-space asses how successful proactive reclaim triggered from memcg
> > >> 'memory.reclaim' was ?
> > >>
> > >> With the patch following command flow is expected:
> > >>
> > >> # echo "1M" > memory.reclaim
> > >>
> > >> # cat memory.reclaim
> > >> scanned 76
> > >> reclaimed 32
> > >
> > > Why cannot you use memory.stat? Sure it would require to iterate over
> > > the reclaimed hierarchy but the information about scanned and reclaimed
> > > pages as well as other potentially useful stats is there.
> >
> > Agree that "memory.stat" is more suitable for scanned/reclaimed stats as
> > it already is exposing bunch of other stats.
> >
> > The discussion on this patch however seems to have split into two parts:
> >
> > 1. Is it a good idea to expose nr_scanned/nr_reclaimed to users-space
> > and if yes how ?
> >
> > IMHO, I think it will be better to expose this info via 'memory.stat' as it
> > can be useful insight into the reclaim efficiency and vmpressure.
>
> We already do that with some more metrics
> pgrefill 9801926
> pgscan 27329762
> pgsteal 22715987
> pgactivate 250691267
> pgdeactivate 9521843
> pglazyfree 0
> pglazyfreed 0
>
> > 2. Will it be useful to provide feedback to userspace when it writes to
> > 'memory.reclaim' on how much memory has been reclaimed ?
> >
> > IMHO, this will be a useful feeback to userspace to better adjust future
> > proactive reclaim requests via 'memory.reclaim'
>
> How precise this information should be? A very simplistic approach would
> be
> cp memory.stat stats.before
> echo $WHATEVER > memory.reclaim
> cp memory.stat stats.after
>
> This will obviously contain also activity outside of the explicitly
> triggered reclaim (racing background/direct reclaim) but isn't that what
> actually matters? Are there any cases where the only metric you care
> about is the triggered reclaim in isolation?
I think it might be useful to have a dedicated entry in memory.stat
for proactively reclaimed memory. A case where this would be useful is
tuning and evaluating userspace proactive reclaimers. For instance, if
a userspace agent is asking the kernel to reclaim 100M, but it could
only reclaim 10M, then most probably the proactive reclaimer is not
using a good methodology to figure out how much memory do we need to
reclaim.
IMO this is more useful, and a superset of just reading the last
reclaim request status through memory.reclaim (read stat before and
after).
Additionally, things get complicated if the userspace agent is
multi-threaded. For a cumulative entry in memory.stat, it shouldn't
matter by a lot as we are looking at the total for all threads
cumulatively anyway. If we are only reading the memory reclaimed in
the last request (through memory.reclaim), then we can easily get the
results of a request that happened on a different thread.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:50:34PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> I think it might be useful to have a dedicated entry in memory.stat
> for proactively reclaimed memory. A case where this would be useful is
> tuning and evaluating userspace proactive reclaimers. For instance, if
> a userspace agent is asking the kernel to reclaim 100M, but it could
> only reclaim 10M, then most probably the proactive reclaimer is not
> using a good methodology to figure out how much memory do we need to
> reclaim.
>
> IMO this is more useful, and a superset of just reading the last
> reclaim request status through memory.reclaim (read stat before and
> after).
+1
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:45 AM Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:50:34PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > I think it might be useful to have a dedicated entry in memory.stat
> > for proactively reclaimed memory. A case where this would be useful is
> > tuning and evaluating userspace proactive reclaimers. For instance, if
> > a userspace agent is asking the kernel to reclaim 100M, but it could
> > only reclaim 10M, then most probably the proactive reclaimer is not
> > using a good methodology to figure out how much memory do we need to
> > reclaim.
> >
> > IMO this is more useful, and a superset of just reading the last
> > reclaim request status through memory.reclaim (read stat before and
> > after).
>
> +1
It might also be useful to have a breakdown of this by memory type:
file, anon, or shrinkers.
It would also fit in nicely with a potential type=file/anon/shrinker
argument to memory.reclaim. Thoughts on this?
On Tue 24-05-22 12:01:01, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:45 AM Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:50:34PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > I think it might be useful to have a dedicated entry in memory.stat
> > > for proactively reclaimed memory. A case where this would be useful is
> > > tuning and evaluating userspace proactive reclaimers. For instance, if
> > > a userspace agent is asking the kernel to reclaim 100M, but it could
> > > only reclaim 10M, then most probably the proactive reclaimer is not
> > > using a good methodology to figure out how much memory do we need to
> > > reclaim.
> > >
> > > IMO this is more useful, and a superset of just reading the last
> > > reclaim request status through memory.reclaim (read stat before and
> > > after).
> >
> > +1
>
> It might also be useful to have a breakdown of this by memory type:
> file, anon, or shrinkers.
>
> It would also fit in nicely with a potential type=file/anon/shrinker
> argument to memory.reclaim. Thoughts on this?
Can we start simple and see what real usecases actually will need?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:59 AM Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue 24-05-22 12:01:01, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:45 AM Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:50:34PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > I think it might be useful to have a dedicated entry in memory.stat
> > > > for proactively reclaimed memory. A case where this would be useful is
> > > > tuning and evaluating userspace proactive reclaimers. For instance, if
> > > > a userspace agent is asking the kernel to reclaim 100M, but it could
> > > > only reclaim 10M, then most probably the proactive reclaimer is not
> > > > using a good methodology to figure out how much memory do we need to
> > > > reclaim.
> > > >
> > > > IMO this is more useful, and a superset of just reading the last
> > > > reclaim request status through memory.reclaim (read stat before and
> > > > after).
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > It might also be useful to have a breakdown of this by memory type:
> > file, anon, or shrinkers.
> >
> > It would also fit in nicely with a potential type=file/anon/shrinker
> > argument to memory.reclaim. Thoughts on this?
>
> Can we start simple and see what real usecases actually will need?
Agreed. Let's start with a single proactively reclaimed memory stat
and then add subcategories if/when needed.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs