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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory
 control
To:     peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20200817140831.30260-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20200818091453.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <3a4d858c-0605-c5fc-4a9e-f05cf221d6ac@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:27:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200818091453.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 8/18/20 5:14 AM, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:08:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Memory controller can be used to control and limit the amount of
>> physical memory used by a task. When a limit is set in "memory.high" in
>> a v2 non-root memory cgroup, the memory controller will try to reclaim
>> memory if the limit has been exceeded. Normally, that will be enough
>> to keep the physical memory consumption of tasks in the memory cgroup
>> to be around or below the "memory.high" limit.
>>
>> Sometimes, memory reclaim may not be able to recover memory in a rate
>> that can catch up to the physical memory allocation rate. In this case,
>> the physical memory consumption will keep on increasing.
> Then slow down the allocator? That's what we do for dirty pages too, we
> slow down the dirtier when we run against the limits.
>
I missed that there are already allocator throttling done in upstream 
code. So I will need to reexamine if this patch is necessary or not.

Thanks,
Longman