On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I'm confused. 

If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU,
	(memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++
	(memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++

Yes.

quoted

Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ?

I think we can never get numbers.

Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external,
since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal.

hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef
is all external.

On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the
machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal.

I think the former may be more natural.

That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously.
Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero.  If items differ
between cgroups, that would suck a lot.

So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal.

How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ?
Should be counted into scan_internal ?

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>