linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:07:18 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hugh@...itas.com,
	menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:42:43 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Kamezawa-San, I would like to integrate the radix tree patches after review and
>>>>>> some more testing then integrate your patchset on top of it. Do you have any
>>>>>> objections/concerns with the suggested approach?
>>>>>>
>>>>> please show performance number first.
>>>> Yes, that is why said some more testing. I am running lmbench and kernbench on
>>>> it and some other tests, I'll get back with numbers.
>>>>
>>> A test which is not suffer much from I/O is better.
>>> And please don't worry about my patches. I'll reschedule if yours goes first.
>>>
>> Thanks, I'll try and find the right set of tests.
> 
> Maybe it's good time to share my concerns.
> 
> IMHO, the memory resource controller is for dividing memory into groups.
> 
> We have following choices to divide memory into groups, now.
>   - cpuset(+ fake NUMA)
>   - VM (kvm, Xen, etc...)
>   - memory resource controller. (memcg)
> 
> Considering 3 aspects peformance, flexibility, isolation(security).
> My expectaion is
> 
> peroformance   : cpuset > memcg >> VMs
> flexibility    : memcg  > VMs >> cpuset.
> isolation      : VMs >> cpuset >= memcg
> 
> The word 'flexibility' sounds sweet *but* it's just one of aspects.
> If the peformance is cpuset > VMs > memcg, I'll advise users to use VMs.
> 
> I think VMs are getting faster and faster. memcg will be slower when we add new
> 'fancy' feature more. (I think we need some more features.)
> So, I want to keep memcg fast as much as possible at this stage.
> 
> But yes, memory usage overhead of page->page_cgroup, struct page_cgroup is big
> on 32bit arch. I'll say users to use VMs, maybe ;)

I understand your concern and I am not trying to reduce memcg's performance - or
add a fancy feature. I am trying to make memcg more friendly for distros. I see
your point about the overhead. I just got back my results - I see a 4% overhead
with the patches. Let me see if I can rework them for better performance.


-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/