Re: Help Resource Counters Scale Better (v3)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:00:25 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-08-10 09:32:29]:
> 
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 17:45:30 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi, 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the detailed review, here is v3 of the patches against
> > > mmotm 6th August. I've documented the TODOs as well. If there are
> > > no major objections, I would like this to be included in mmotm
> > > for more testing. Any test reports on a large machine would be highly
> > > appreciated.
> > > 
> > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > Changelog v3->v2
> > > 
> > > 1. Added more documentation and comments
> > > 2. Made the check in mem_cgroup_set_limit strict
> > > 3. Increased tolerance per cpu to 64KB.
> > > 4. Still have the WARN_ON(), I've kept it for debugging
> > >    purposes, may be we should make it a conditional with
> > >    DEBUG_VM
> > > 
> > Because I'll be absent for a while, I don't give any Reviewed-by or Acked-by, now.
> > 
> > Before leaving, I'd like to write some concerns here.
> > 
> > 1. you use res_counter_read_positive() in force_empty. It seems force_empty can
> >    go into infinite loop. plz check. (especially when some pages are freed or swapped-in
> >    in other cpu while force_empry runs.)
> 
> OK.. so you want me to use _sum_positive(), will do. In all my testing
> using the stress scripts I have, I found no issues with force_empty so
> far. But I'll change over.
> 
Thanks. Things around force_empty are very sensitive ;(



> > 
> > 2. In near future, we'll see 256 or 1024 cpus on a system, anyway.
> >    Assume 1024cpu system, 64k*1024=64M is a tolerance.
> >    Can't we calculate max-tolerane as following ?
> >   
> >    tolerance = min(64k * num_online_cpus(), limit_in_bytes/100);
> >    tolerance /= num_online_cpus();
> >    per_cpu_tolerance = min(16k, tolelance);
> > 
> >    I think automatic runtine adjusting of tolerance will be finally necessary,
> >    but above will not be very bad because we can guarantee 1% tolerance.
> > 
> 
> I agree that automatic tuning will be necessary, but I want to go the
> CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_RES_TOLERANCE approach you suggested earlier, since
> num_online_cpus() with CPU hotplug can be a bit of a game play and
> with Power Management and CPUs going idle, we really don't want to
> count those, etc. For now a simple nr_cpu_ids * tolerance and then
> get feedback, since it is a heuristic. Again, limit_in_bytes can
> change, may be some of this needs to go into resize_limit and
> set_limit paths. Right now, I want to keep it simple and see if
> others can see the benefits of this patch. Then add some more
> heuristics based on your suggestion.
> 
> Do you agree?

Ok. Config is enough at this stage.

The last advice for merge is, it's better to show the numbers or
ask someone who have many cpus to measure benefits. Then, Andrew can
know how this is benefical.
(My box has 8 cpus. But maybe your IBM collaegue has some bigger one)

In my experience (in my own old trial),
 - lock contention itself is low. not high.
 - but cacheline-miss, pingpong is very very frequent.

Then, this patch has some benefit logically but, in general,
File-I/O, swapin-swapout, page-allocation/initalize etc..dominates
the performance of usual apps. You'll have to be careful to select apps
to measure the benfits of this patch by application performance.
(And this is why I don't feel so much emergency as you do)

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>