Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 08:35:48 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PROPOSAL] memcg: per-memcg user space reclaim interface
Message-ID: <20200703063548.GM18446@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20200702152222.2630760-1-shakeelb@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200702152222.2630760-1-shakeelb@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 02-07-20 08:22:22, Shakeel Butt wrote:
[...]
> Interface options:
> ------------------
> 
> 1) memcg interface e.g. 'echo 10M > memory.reclaim'
> 
> + simple
> + can be extended to target specific type of memory (anon, file, kmem).
> - most probably restricted to cgroup v2.
> 
> 2) fadvise(PAGEOUT) on cgroup_dir_fd
> 
> + more general and applicable to other FSes (actually we are using
> something similar for tmpfs).
> + can be extended in future to just age the LRUs instead of reclaim or
> some new use cases.

Could you explain why memory.high as an interface to trigger pro-active
memory reclaim is not sufficient. Also memory.low limit to protect
latency sensitve workloads?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs