From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FB4C32771 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354697AbiHSRqb (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:46:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57282 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1354960AbiHSRpx (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:45:53 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4465E108F2F; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id w138so2229947pfc.10; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc; bh=7WjX18+SJwTo5iBm+RDyyQ38vzw7KWPpCCkeot28T3I=; b=S2LQx7r114T3Une2zfGFyLwMrHa53oIGdjnC12/4bfWAbMWUv2OE+868ZxwJnKnTK5 gIVgFaQYliBJlbsl93dYwckLq4nOrsq10YPb+jlSAjq9Umnyphckr+qnSL2aQVpzGVto vewKy7me+Lzo+L3NyBQSpckbYXsXXPhMFBybX8rTpvLr/JylVeX0hnH49TJcdqZADlz/ EAdt9R3Hp5ulkjlW1/sWG3jBtntFH3F7J/pb/QIn81PIGqEbXw1nDsCA6B2zLes55j0a lqyzknuwoXDpW3Yokmnj3pI8Unzw9HnSTknRp/Z9t7fKbEETpV2Eg4zTWPxQK3Pq9zlH pV1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=7WjX18+SJwTo5iBm+RDyyQ38vzw7KWPpCCkeot28T3I=; b=gpRYK45372CdZburhq2qQvsLrXqTSmpo5WCUgwfhggzYTe7gFgvs2TkNe04Y5m8ZIq DR3JeYR9E2YqP6W6iferXqT81Wzn5v8lIGs9TEf4oC6j20mg+AfRK41Krx6QvBXSmTMg j2AvdyRal43zHg01WHbfnJ5OVtIAGdZXuWdukjMl2gN+Y3Y+J7/Z0Q3b15N/O50foq8i pEZRfr26gP6lcSso/fSSS+tNXaU/OB7MCKL7rJrkbjWYXCqE+3b0DughXfzP9KhpbU8a uquAxBS1Piooq8Y4GePHgZYrJ0YQM4IsrhRE2uukwmYZ8ZyyO2Io/PtMIS6SIxbAfYRy RV/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0SbzLVbU8tkkLh12kPL9Uch1txTMb4ISpriUE8vVWtUmXcdhcJ DfMu7A+a9JmtcpkBDZCfcOM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4N4u7pHPc2TIUiawaqfkhsiNKVDn/EG+sF93jrjzRMMKCrNOEKARKB8/S+80/4KDYKfmdAPw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6854:0:b0:41c:feab:e17c with SMTP id q20-20020a656854000000b0041cfeabe17cmr7097086pgt.256.1660929028734; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:db7d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f23-20020a17090a121700b001f94d25bfabsm5451928pja.28.2022.08.19.10.10.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:10:26 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Shakeel Butt Cc: "zhaoyang.huang" , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Zhaoyang Huang , Linux MM , LKML , Cgroups , ke.wang@unisoc.com, Zefan Li , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem_cgroup when css is inherited Message-ID: References: <1660908562-17409-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:08:59AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 9:29 AM Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:29:22PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > > > > > It is observed in android system where per-app cgroup is demanded by freezer > > > subsys and part of groups require memory control. The hierarchy could be simplized > > > as bellowing where memory charged on group B abserved while we only want have > > > group E's memory be controlled and B's descendants compete freely for memory. > > > This should be the consequences of unified hierarchy. > > > Under this scenario, less efficient memory reclaim is observed when comparing > > > with no memory control. It is believed that multi LRU scanning introduces some > > > of the overhead. Furthermore, page thrashing is also heavier than global LRU > > > which could be the consequences of partial failure of WORKINGSET mechanism as > > > LRU is too short to protect the active pages. > > > > > > A(subtree_control = memory) - B(subtree_control = NULL) - C() > > > \ D() > > > - E(subtree_control = memory) - F() > > > \ G() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang > > > > Just in case it wasn't clear. > > > > Nacked-by: Tejun Heo > > > > Thanks. > > > > Was there a previous discussion on this? The commit message is unreadable. http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1660298966-11493-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com Thanks. -- tejun