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 9F4EEC32771 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1350500AbiHSRLN (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:11:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53530 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1350087AbiHSRKi (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:10:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3E911BB1D; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id c24so4070899pgg.11; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:30:40 -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=UMwZBhpqxvMN4MWwkHckLMAVG27kfXbnwXOCeD112cI=; b=GCXQ0jrSKwhxTdDFaLB9Yx0otU4yPi1wlSwQtWbV+ZH7O/f4QKRxXJTQenmXQDThwK qOzg+oLhbwQWO+mboLEBXF4mWTEdBiQjEth/eUYaDnlQHfA4oxAr+S6jlTmbfb+B4RBm MMfkAsBxGk04ZGAWr3GQUVXWvZbwjGhcIkk32qwPQbVMESPB1oNgBnV1oBsktWK3btWP aZfzgsVl5keC0Xcy0DfJxAfbrQmNzJY/SpNIPEomjheSRkuln3FTfweWPPzG9+7R/+Lb WKZy3Hkc9y4q+EWRBO2VhDaNdmmQHnhx4NU8x8D18sXITF2WqzIyVgyGGkWRVjT1lcmI bzfw== 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=UMwZBhpqxvMN4MWwkHckLMAVG27kfXbnwXOCeD112cI=; b=0GiixpWqjYIut3jKnJm4pLJVkx1ro6Egtrhv4XeL/3Gef2kgJaXkqmLbj8ZYItXy/5 /6BAxoR5ib94X3fC09opuwL9nVg/03UQxYXIVP4uXhj7vUKpuJPschs5xkegfVD6k6Z7 p9cpg+xFAbhIid/cKkF8Rr9+mhhBoSrC0IOrg3S511/tPpP8DaFhlV8dSBQEmzcKC/9x xAZz6osl3//WYinqmSqg8pTcxFtM3EOPOeM/Tu40NMC3Tg/NcxA9fgXRs6Pi0EfEQ4On eULGRgzad545ZJjJk6+BZrtWvRoFra2zgA9w7P6GESDd/dHP7RlsXSOIeeQE67eyaBKi e4vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3YUVEqGLiaLt7jnTn1fN8ZxKUeIgPUmD+Gqv66artg2CmwkzGq sZ5/nwcRq2YPFIDLmOn3k+M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7qwQkeiT9bIYFGWoJJzTnKudCWsCo3wg9a4a8ZRYNU25geqs9/HUiLyJqucTL0mwrA2mRmEA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:8848:0:b0:42a:1a29:c261 with SMTP id l69-20020a638848000000b0042a1a29c261mr5606255pgd.51.1660926565069; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:db7d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m13-20020a170902db0d00b0016ee4b0bd60sm3402498plx.166.2022.08.19.09.29.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 06:29:22 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: "zhaoyang.huang" Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Zhaoyang Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com, Zefan Li , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , 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: <1660908562-17409-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- tejun