Ok, I’ll send the proposal later today.
Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:14, Michal Hocko mhocko@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon 18-02-19 18:57:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:38:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 18-02-19 17:16:34, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:30:44AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:43 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: 4.20-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
From: Dave Chinner dchinner@redhat.com
commit a9a238e83fbb0df31c3b9b67003f8f9d1d1b6c96 upstream.
This reverts commit 172b06c32b9497 ("mm: slowly shrink slabs with a relatively small number of objects").
This revert will result in the slab caches of dead cgroups with a small number of remaining objects never getting reclaimed, which can be a memory leak in some configurations.
But hey, that's your tradeoff to make.
That's what is in Linus's tree. Should we somehow diverge from that?
I believe we should start working on a memcg specific solution to minimize regressions for others and start a more complex solution from there.
Can we special case dead memcgs in the slab reclaim and reclaim more aggressively?
It's probably better to start a new thread to discuss this issue
agreed
(btw, doesn't LSF/MM looks like the best place to do it? I can send a proposal).
I was about to do that if nobody else did.
dropped the rest of the email because this really deserves a new discussion. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs