From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Facebook Kernel Team <kernel-team@meta.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: expose children memory usage for root
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:20:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkaR3s6fzRZWdvMvfSRBRaozSj7d2pH5HUjtbuOW+RROFA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240722225306.1494878-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:53 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> Linux kernel does not expose memory.current on the root memcg and there
> are applications which have to traverse all the top level memcgs to
> calculate the total memory charged in the system. This is more expensive
> (directory traversal and multiple open and reads) and is racy on a busy
> machine. As the kernel already have the needed information i.e. root's
> memory.current, why not expose that?
>
> However root's memory.current will have a different semantics than the
> non-root's memory.current as the kernel skips the charging for root, so
> maybe it is better to have a different named interface for the root.
> Something like memory.children_usage only for root memcg.
>
> Now there is still a question that why the kernel does not expose
> memory.current for the root. The historical reason was that the memcg
> charging was expensice and to provide the users to bypass the memcg
> charging by letting them run in the root. However do we still want to
> have this exception today? What is stopping us to start charging the
> root memcg as well. Of course the root will not have limits but the
> allocations will go through memcg charging and then the memory.current
> of root and non-root will have the same semantics.
>
> This is an RFC to start a discussion on memcg charging for root.
I vaguely remember when running some netperf tests (tcp_rr?) in a
cgroup that the performance decreases considerably with every level
down the hierarchy. I am assuming that charging was a part of the
reason. If that's the case, charging the root will be similar to
moving all workloads one level down the hierarchy in terms of charging
overhead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 6 ++++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> index 6c6075ed4aa5..e4afc05fd8ea 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> @@ -1220,6 +1220,12 @@ PAGE_SIZE multiple when read back.
> The total amount of memory currently being used by the cgroup
> and its descendants.
>
> + memory.children_usage
> + A read-only single value file which exists only on root cgroup.
> +
> + The total amount of memory currently being used by the
> + descendants of the root cgroup.
> +
> memory.min
> A read-write single value file which exists on non-root
> cgroups. The default is "0".
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 960371788687..eba8cf76d3d3 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -4304,6 +4304,11 @@ static struct cftype memory_files[] = {
> .flags = CFTYPE_NOT_ON_ROOT,
> .read_u64 = memory_current_read,
> },
> + {
> + .name = "children_usage",
> + .flags = CFTYPE_ONLY_ON_ROOT,
> + .read_u64 = memory_current_read,
> + },
> {
> .name = "peak",
> .flags = CFTYPE_NOT_ON_ROOT,
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-25 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-22 22:53 Shakeel Butt
2024-07-25 23:12 ` T.J. Mercier
2024-07-26 15:46 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-07-26 16:46 ` T.J. Mercier
2024-07-25 23:20 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2024-07-26 15:48 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-07-26 16:25 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-07-26 16:50 ` T.J. Mercier
2024-07-26 17:18 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-07-26 17:30 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-07-26 17:43 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-07-26 18:16 ` Shakeel Butt
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=CAJD7tkaR3s6fzRZWdvMvfSRBRaozSj7d2pH5HUjtbuOW+RROFA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
/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