From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx106.postini.com [74.125.245.106]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36CB16B0071 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FDF1BAB.9050205@parallels.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:14:35 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/25] kmem limitation for memcg References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FDF1ABE.7070200@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4FDF1ABE.7070200@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , Cristoph Lameter , David Rientjes , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Suleiman Souhlal On 06/18/2012 04:10 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > (2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge >> all of the previous comments from you guys, specially concerning the big churn >> inside the allocators themselves. >> >> My focus in this new round was to keep the changes in the cache internals to >> a minimum. To do that, I relied upon two main pillars: >> >> * Cristoph's unification series, that allowed me to put must of the changes >> in a common file. Even then, the changes are not too many, since the overal >> level of invasiveness was decreased. >> * Accounting is done directly from the page allocator. This means some pages >> can fail to be accounted, but that can only happen when the task calling >> kmem_cache_alloc or kmalloc is not the same task allocating a new page. >> This never happens in steady state operation if the tasks are kept in the >> same memcg. Naturally, if the page ends up being accounted to a memcg that >> is not limited (such as root memcg), that particular page will simply not >> be accounted. >> >> The dispatcher code stays (mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache), being the mechanism who >> guarantees that, during steady state operation, all objects allocated in a page >> will belong to the same memcg. I consider this a good compromise point between >> strict and loose accounting here. >> > > 2 questions. > > - Do you have performance numbers ? Not extensive. I've run some microbenchmarks trying to determine the effect of my code on kmem_cache_alloc, and found it to be in the order of 2 to 3 %. I would expect that to vanish in a workload benchmark. > > - Do you think user-memory memcg should be switched to page-allocator level accounting ? > (it will require some study for modifying current bached-freeing and per-cpu-stock > logics...) I don't see a reason for that. My main goal by doing that was to reduce the churn in the cache internal structures, but specially because there is at least two of them, obeying a stable interface. The way I understand it, memcg for user pages is already pretty well integrated to the page allocator, so the benefit of it is questionable. -- 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: email@kvack.org