Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:08 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:55 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:11:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Regarding "max" as a possible input. I am not really sure to be honest.
> > > I can imagine that it could be legit to simply reclaim all the charges
> > > (e.g. before removing the memcg) which should be achieveable by
> > > reclaiming the reported consumption. Or what exactly should be the
> > > semantic?
> >
> > Yeah, it just allows you to avoid reading memory.current to just
> > reclaim everything if you can specify "max" - you're still protected
> > by nretries to eventually bail out. Mostly, though I just feel like
> > supporting "max" makes memory.reclaim semetric with a lot of the
> > cgroup memory control files which tend to support "max".
>
> One possible approach here is to have force_empty behavior when we
> write "max" to memory.reclaim. From Google's perspective we don't have
> a preference, but it seems to me like logical behavior. We can do this
> either by directly calling mem_cgroup_force_empty() or just draining
> stock and lrus in memory_reclaim().
>
> This actually brings up another interesting point. Do you think we
> should drain lrus if try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() fails to reclaim
> the request amount? We can do this after the first call or before the
> last one. It could introduce more evictable pages for
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() to free.

Hey Michal, any thoughts on this? I am looking for feedback on this
before I send out v4.