From: Zhu Yanhai <zhu.yanhai@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:08:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikk97yR9j4iOHz=Ye0evhnAQkTodL+Df9E-+VeM@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimMLieDT2dePRvtUFDvasz1rk=ZgTdeei0BL9P5@mail.gmail.com>
2011/3/29 Zhu Yanhai <zhu.yanhai@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/3/29 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>:
>> Isn't this an overhead that would slow the whole thing down. Consider
>> that you would need to lookup page_cgroup for every page and touch
>> mem_cgroup to get the limit.
>
> Current almost has did such things, say the direct reclaim path:
> shrink_inactive_list()
> ->isolate_pages_global()
> ->isolate_lru_pages()
> ->mem_cgroup_del_lru(for each page it wants to isolate)
> and in mem_cgroup_del_lru() we have:
oops, the below code is from mem_cgroup_rotate_lru_list not
mem_cgroup_del_lru, the correct one should be:
[code]
pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
/* can happen while we handle swapcache. */
if (!TestClearPageCgroupAcctLRU(pc))
return;
VM_BUG_ON(!pc->mem_cgroup);
/*
* We don't check PCG_USED bit. It's cleared when the "page" is finally
* removed from global LRU.
*/
mz = page_cgroup_zoneinfo(pc);
MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, lru) -= 1;
if (mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
return;
[/code]
Anyway, the point still stands.
-zyh
> [code]
> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> /*
> * Used bit is set without atomic ops but after smp_wmb().
> * For making pc->mem_cgroup visible, insert smp_rmb() here.
> */
> smp_rmb();
> /* unused or root page is not rotated. */
> if (!PageCgroupUsed(pc) || mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup))
> return;
> [/code]
> By calling mem_cgroup_is_root(pc->mem_cgroup) we already brought the
> struct mem_cgroup into cache.
> So probably things won't get worse at least.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhu Yanhai
>
>> The point of the isolation is to not touch the global reclaim path at
>> all.
>>
>>> 3) shrink the cgroups who have set a reserve_limit, and leave them with only
>>> the reserve_limit bytes they need. if nr_reclaimed is meet, goto finish.
>>> 4) OOM
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?
>>
>> It sounds like a good thing - in that regard it is more generic than
>> a simple flag - but I am afraid that the implementation wouldn't be
>> that easy to preserve the performance and keep the balance between
>> groups. But maybe it can be done without too much cost.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Michal Hocko
>> SUSE Labs
>> SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
>> Lihovarska 1060/12
>> 190 00 Praha 9
>> Czech Republic
>>
>
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-29 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-28 9:39 Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:39 ` [RFC 1/3] Add mem_cgroup->isolated and configuration knob Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:39 ` [RFC 2/3] Implement isolated LRU cgroups Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 9:40 ` [RFC 3/3] Do not shrink isolated groups from the global reclaim Michal Hocko
2011-03-28 11:03 ` [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-28 11:44 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 0:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 7:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 8:59 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 9:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 11:18 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 13:15 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-03-29 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-29 14:02 ` Zhu Yanhai
2011-03-29 14:08 ` Zhu Yanhai [this message]
2011-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-30 5:32 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 15:53 ` Balbir Singh
2011-03-30 8:18 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-30 17:59 ` Ying Han
2011-03-31 9:53 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-31 18:10 ` Ying Han
2011-04-01 14:04 ` Michal Hocko
2011-03-31 10:01 ` Balbir Singh
2011-03-28 18:01 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 0:12 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 0:37 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 0:47 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 2:29 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 3:02 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 2:46 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 2:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-29 4:03 ` Ying Han
2011-03-29 7:53 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='AANLkTikk97yR9j4iOHz=Ye0evhnAQkTodL+Df9E-+VeM@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=zhu.yanhai@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox