[LSF/MM TOPIC] memory control groups

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

Hello,

on the MM summit, I would like to talk about the current state of
memory control groups, the features and extensions that are currently
being developed for it, and what their status is.

I am especially interested in talking about the current runtime memory
overhead memcg comes with (1% of ram) and what we can do to shrink it.

In comparison to how efficiently struct page is packed, and given that
distro kernels come with memcg enabled per default, I think we should
put a bit more thought into how struct page_cgroup (which exists for
every page in the system as well) is organized.

I have a patch series that removes the page backpointer from struct
page_cgroup by storing a node ID (or section ID, depending on whether
sparsemem is configured) in the free bits of pc->flags.

I also plan on replacing the pc->mem_cgroup pointer with an ID
(KAMEZAWA-san has patches for that), and move it to pc->flags too.
Every flag not used means doubling the amount of possible control
groups, so I have patches that get rid of some flags currently
allocated, including PCG_CACHE, PCG_ACCT_LRU, and PCG_MIGRATION.

[ I meant to send those out much earlier already, but a bug in the
migration rework was not responding to my yelling 'Marco', and now my
changes collide horribly with THP, so it will take another rebase. ]

The per-memcg dirty accounting work e.g. allocates a bunch of new bits
in pc->flags and I'd like to hash out if this leaves enough room for
the structure packing I described, or whether we can come up with a
different way of tracking state.

Would other people be interested in discussing this?

	Hannes

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>