From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE98C433ED for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B3161382 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 03B3161382 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 76AA96B007D; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6F3EA6B007E; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 56FCC6B0080; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0070.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389A46B007D for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF31B173086B for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78005689062.02.26EFB12 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5A340002CD for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137DXNF7150093; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:43:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=ut34vTc6pDXsycRccgnTEyFOYJEGJnIMiBKnzo/o+K4=; b=N4oe9t7MN4uSn/z10cv4wBQFnTmfUyITLJTKWCHqm2Exard1eZ4O+B5Y79K2tpBAcU8+ ZyRgxqTupJmNqNHe4rCdqgrMqJwHwyPgVmLMkHR2OmzBJoNJJiPtjtPXtId8ECbS78dA c7JTH7PQ/3h3tRbPnJUfCDNezvT7N1cWfET/Cfy5MdXTumbulokBlWPKLrnwFY27mLSc NjUlYG88Y33O5x0Gx3vZCIvaEL5NEtZYjd+cWGRb6r+hIKyaYXU2CqVBfDnqZIIdnuxf 1C5iz0F9VdLclHnAXjowVvY9r1Kgav3mlOKtbJs1Eqt6Bs2gkYglmIC650CkebFGkjF3 FQ== Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rwf0gs9j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:43:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137DhTpK014113; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:48 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37rvbw0dkt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 13:43:48 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 137Dhkh123790020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:46 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486735204F; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from in.ibm.com (unknown [9.199.44.82]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 175D65204E; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:13:42 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao To: Michal Hocko Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers Message-ID: <20210407134342.GA1386511@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: bharata@linux.ibm.com References: <20210405054848.GA1077931@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: eic6vawrVTddkbSgnSTIykSKr_OQiEmN X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: eic6vawrVTddkbSgnSTIykSKr_OQiEmN X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-07_08:2021-04-07,2021-04-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=918 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104070094 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6B5A340002CD X-Stat-Signature: urn3cpccr9tb8rexkrcxwkms5mhendo5 Received-SPF: none (linux.ibm.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf10; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; client-ip=148.163.158.5 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1617803028-282473 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 05-04-21 11:18:48, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When running 10000 (more-or-less-empty-)containers on a bare-metal Power9 > > server(160 CPUs, 2 NUMA nodes, 256G memory), it is seen that memory > > consumption increases quite a lot (around 172G) when the containers are > > running. Most of it comes from slab (149G) and within slab, the majority of > > it comes from kmalloc-32 cache (102G) > > Is this 10k cgroups a testing enviroment or does anybody really use that > in production? I would be really curious to hear how that behaves when > those containers are not idle. E.g. global memory reclaim iterating over > 10k memcgs will likely be very visible. I do remember playing with > similar setups few years back and the overhead was very high. This 10k containers is only a test scenario that we are looking at. Regards, Bharata.