linux-kernel - Re: Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4)

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]

Message-ID: <20090812035605.GF7176@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:26:05 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, menage@...gle.com,
	prarit@...hat.com, andi.kleen@...el.com, xemul@...nvz.org,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4)

* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> [2009-08-11 16:31:59]:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:14:05 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Enhancement: Remove the overhead of root based resource counter accounting
> > 
> > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > This patch reduces the resource counter overhead (mostly spinlock)
> > associated with the root cgroup. This is a part of the several
> > patches to reduce mem cgroup overhead. I had posted other
> > approaches earlier (including using percpu counters). Those
> > patches will be a natural addition and will be added iteratively
> > on top of these.
> > 
> > The patch stops resource counter accounting for the root cgroup.
> > The data for display is derived from the statisitcs we maintain
> > via mem_cgroup_charge_statistics (which is more scalable).
> > 
> > The tests results I see on a 24 way show that
> > 
> > 1. The lock contention disappears from /proc/lock_stats
> > 2. The results of the test are comparable to running with
> >    cgroup_disable=memory.
> > 
> > Please test/review.
> 
> I don't get it.
> 
> The patch apepars to skip accounting altogether for the root memcgroup
> and then adds some accounting back in for swap.  Or something like
> that.  How come?  Do we actually not need the root memcgroup
> accounting?
>

The changelog mentions that the statistics are derived. For memsw as
Daisuke-San mentioned, the SWAP accounting is for memsw. We can derive
memory.usage_in_bytes from RSS+Cache fields in the memory.stat
accounting. For memsw, we needed SWAP accounting.

 
> IOW, the changelog sucks ;)
> 
> Is this an alternative approach to using percpu_counters, or do we do
> both or do we choose one or the other?  res_counter_charge() really is
> quite sucky.
> 
> The patch didn't have a signoff.
> 
> It would be nice to finalise those performance testing results and
> include them in the new, improved patch description.
> 

I'll submit a new patch with better changelog, checkpatch.pl fixes and
test results.


-- 
	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/