From: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] memcg, slab: never try to merge memcg caches
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:10:37 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA6-i6oXx1pPdR1Agfo+3bRGxKgpiZ6+y-oxLpiCJAx7rWQuQg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52F10F95.4050204@parallels.com>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com> wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:43 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>>>> On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>>>>>> Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
>>>>>>> of the same memcg. Since any memcg cache has the same parameters as its
>>>>>>> parent cache, parent caches PA and PB of memcg caches A and B must be
>>>>>>> mergeable too. That means PA was merged with PB on creation or vice
>>>>>>> versa, i.e. PA = PB. From that it follows that A = B, and we couldn't
>>>>>>> even try to create cache B, because it already exists - a contradiction.
>>>>>> I cannot tell I understand the above but I am totally not sure about the
>>>>>> statement bellow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let's remove unused code responsible for merging memcg caches.
>>>>>> How come the code was unused? find_mergeable called cache_match_memcg...
>>>>> Oh, sorry for misleading comment. I mean the code handling merging of
>>>>> per-memcg caches is useless, AFAIU: if we find an alias for a per-memcg
>>>>> cache on kmem_cache_create_memcg(), the parent of the found alias must
>>>>> be the same as the parent_cache passed to kmem_cache_create_memcg(), but
>>>>> if it were so, we would never proceed to the memcg cache creation,
>>>>> because the cache we want to create already exists.
>>>> I am still not sure I understand this correctly. So the outcome of this
>>>> patch is that compatible caches of different memcgs can be merged
>>>> together? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I am not that familiar
>>>> with this area much I am just seeing that cache_match_memcg goes away
>>>> and my understanding of the function is that it should prevent from
>>>> different memcg's caches merging.
>>> Let me try to explain how I understand it.
>>>
>>> What is cache merging/aliasing? When we create a cache
>>> (kmem_cache_create()), we first try to find a compatible cache that
>>> already exists and can handle requests from the new cache. If it is, we
>>> do not create any new caches, instead we simply increment the old cache
>>> refcount and return it.
>>>
>>> What about memcgs? Currently, it operates in the same way, i.e. on memcg
>>> cache creation we also try to find a compatible cache of the same memcg
>>> first. But if there were such a cache, they parents would have been
>>> merged (i.e. it would be the same cache). That means we would not even
>>> get to this memcg cache creation, because it already exists. That's why
>>> the code handling memcg caches merging seems pointless to me.
>>>
>> IIRC, this may not always hold. Some of the properties are configurable via
>> sysfs, and it might be that you haven't merged two parent caches because they
>> properties differ, but would be fine merging the child caches.
>>
>> If all properties we check are compile-time parameters, then it should be okay.
>
> AFAIK, we decide if a cache should be merged only basing on its internal
> parameters, such as size, ctor, flags, align (see find_mergeable()), but
> they are the same for root and memcg caches.
>
> The only way to disable slub merging is via the "slub_nomerge" kernel
> parameter, so it is impossible to get a situation when parents can not
> be merged, while children can.
>
> The only point of concern may be so called boot caches
> (create_boot_cache()), which are forcefully not allowed to be merged by
> setting refcount = -1. There are actually only two of them kmem_cache
> and kmem_cache_node used for internal slub allocations. I guess it was
> done preliminary, and we should not merge them for memcgs neither.
>
> To sum it up, if a particular root cache is allowed to be merged, it was
> allowed to be merged since its creation and all its children caches are
> also allowed to be merged. If merging was not allowed for a root cache
> when it was created, we should not merge its children caches.
>
> Thanks.
Fair Enough.
--
E Mare, Libertas
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-04 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-02 16:33 [PATCH 0/8] memcg-vs-slab related fixes, improvements, cleanups Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 1/8] memcg: export kmemcg cache id via cgroup fs Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-03 6:21 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-03 6:57 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-03 7:19 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-03 10:05 ` Glauber Costa
2014-02-03 13:01 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-03 11:04 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-03 13:00 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-04 14:40 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-04 14:49 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 2/8] memcg, slab: remove cgroup name from memcg cache names Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 14:45 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-04 15:11 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 15:13 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 3/8] memcg, slab: never try to merge memcg caches Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 14:52 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-04 14:59 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 15:11 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-04 15:27 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 15:43 ` Glauber Costa
2014-02-04 16:04 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-04 16:10 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2014-02-06 14:07 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-06 14:15 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-06 15:29 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-06 15:39 ` Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 4/8] memcg, slab: separate memcg vs root cache creation paths Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 5/8] slub: adjust memcg caches when creating cache alias Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 6/8] slub: rework sysfs layout for memcg caches Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 7/8] memcg, slab: unregister cache from memcg before starting to destroy it Vladimir Davydov
2014-02-02 16:33 ` [PATCH 8/8] memcg, slab: do not destroy children caches if parent has aliases Vladimir Davydov
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=CAA6-i6oXx1pPdR1Agfo+3bRGxKgpiZ6+y-oxLpiCJAx7rWQuQg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=glommer@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/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