Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 02-05-14 09:01:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > > > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
> > > > >  	return mem_cgroup_from_id(id);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the
> > > > > + * reclaim
> > > > > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim
> > > > > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim)
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same
> > > > > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including).
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > > > +		struct mem_cgroup *root)
> > > > 
> > > > Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in
> > > > the reclaim callsite?  How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()?
> > > 
> > > I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The
> > > generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is
> > > not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit
> > > and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be
> > > renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@
> > > but I do not have a strong preference.
> > 
> > What about this?
> 
> I really don't like it.
> 
> Yes, we should be hiding implementation details, but we should stop
> treating memcg like an alien in this code.  The VM code obviously
> doesn't have to know HOW the guarantees are exactly implemented, but
> it's a perfectly fine *concept* that can be known outside of memcg:
> 
> shrink_zone:
> for each memcg in system:
>   if mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(memcg):
>     continue
>   reclaim(memcg-zone)
> 
> is perfectly understandable and makes it easier to reason about the
> behavior of the reclaim code.  If I just see !mem_cgroup_eligible(), I
> don't know if this affects the scenario I'm thinking about at all.
> 
> It's obscuring useful information for absolutely no benefit.  If you
> burden the reclaim code with a callback, you better explain what you
> are doing.  You owe it to the reader.

OK fair enough, what about the following?
---