Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1420965
| From | Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim |
| Date | 2016-06-13 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rJBEZ-7YP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rJuWR-3i5-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rJuWS-3i5-45@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Minchan, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:50:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > These day, there are many platforms available in the embedded market > and sometime, they has more hints about workingset than kernel so > they want to involve memory management more heavily like android's > lowmemory killer and ashmem or user-daemon with lowmemory notifier. > > This patch adds add new method for userspace to manage memory > efficiently via knob "/proc/<pid>/reclaim" so platform can reclaim > any process anytime. Cgroups are our canonical way to control system resources on a per process or group-of-processes level. I don't like the idea of adding ad-hoc interfaces for single-use cases like this. For this particular case, you can already stick each app into its own cgroup and use memory.force_empty to target-reclaim them. Or better yet, set the soft limits / memory.low to guide physical memory pressure, once it actually occurs, toward the least-important apps? We usually prefer doing work on-demand rather than proactively. The one-cgroup-per-app model would give Android much more control and would also remove a *lot* of overhead during task switches, see this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/19/358
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
[PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-06-13 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-16 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-06-16 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-17 08:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-17 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2016-06-13 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 03:10 +0200
[PATCH v1 1/3] mm: vmscan: refactoring force_reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Chen Feng <puck.chen@hisilicon.com> - 2016-06-13 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" <zhaojunmin@huawei.com> - 2016-06-13 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-13 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 03:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-16 06:30 +0200
csiph-web