linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] memcg: rework usage of stats by soft limit

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: <cc557aab0912142348j6d0f6206qd751f74e416c6710@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:48:09 +0200
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dan Malek <dan@...eddedalley.com>,
	Vladislav Buzov <vbuzov@...eddedalley.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] memcg: rework usage of stats by soft limit

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:35 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:46:08 +0200
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
>> <d-nishimura@....biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200
>> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura
>> >> <d-nishimura@....biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>> >> > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ?
>> >> > I think it would be better:
>> >> >
>> >> > - discard this change.
>> >> > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check,
>> >> >  and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like:
>> >> >
>> >> >        if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) {
>> >> >                mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page);
>> >> >                mem_cgroup_threshold(mem);
>> >> >        }
>> >>
>> >> I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should be
>> >> run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS
>> >> between soft limits and thresholds in this case?
>> >>
>> > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(charge and uncharge).
>> > So, I think those events can be shared.
>> > Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ?
>>
>> SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH is 1000. If use the same value for thresholds,
>> a threshold can
>> be exceed on 1000*nr_cpu_id pages. It's too many. I think, that 100 is
>> a reasonable value.
>>
>
> Hmm, then what amount of costs does this code add ?
>
> Do you have benchmark result ?

I've post some numbers how the patchset affects performance:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/41880

Do you need any other results?
--
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/