Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:15:33 +0900
From:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Shared page accounting for memory cgroup

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:09:02 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:22:41 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 January 2010 08:04 AM, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:19:42 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Daisuke Nishimura
> > >> <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>>> Correct, file cache is almost always considered shared, so it has
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1. non-private or shared usage of 10MB
> > >>>> 2. 10 MB of file cache
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I don't think "non private usage" is appropriate to this value.
> > >>>>> Why don't you just show "sum_of_each_process_rss" ? I think it would be easier
> > >>>>> to understand for users.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here is my concern
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1. The gap between looking at memcg stat and sum of all RSS is way
> > >>>> higher in user space
> > >>>> 2. Summing up all rss without walking the tasks atomically can and
> > >>>> will lead to consistency issues. Data can be stale as long as it
> > >>>> represents a consistent snapshot of data
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We need to differentiate between
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1. Data snapshot (taken at a time, but valid at that point)
> > >>>> 2. Data taken from different sources that does not form a uniform
> > >>>> snapshot, because the timestamping of the each of the collected data
> > >>>> items is different
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hmm, I'm sorry I can't understand why you need "difference".
> > >>> IOW, what can users or middlewares know by the value in the above case
> > >>> (0MB in 01 and 10MB in 02)? I've read this thread, but I can't understande about
> > >>> this point... Why can this value mean some of the groups are "heavy" ?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Consider a default cgroup that is not root and assume all applications
> > >> move there initially. Now with a lot of shared memory,
> > >> the default cgroup will be the first one to page in a lot of the
> > >> memory and its usage will be very high. Without the concept of
> > >> showing how much is non-private, how does one decide if the default
> > >> cgroup is using a lot of memory or sharing it? How
> > >> do we decide on limits of a cgroup without knowing its actual usage -
> > >> PSS equivalent for a region of memory for a task.
> > >>
> > > As for limit, I think we should decide it based on the actual usage because
> > > we account and limit the accual usage. Why we should take account of the sum of rss ?
> > 
> > I am talking of non-private pages or potentially shared pages - which is
> > derived as follows
> > 
> > sum_of_all_rss - (rss + file_mapped) (from .stat file)
> > 
> > file cache is considered to be shared always
> > 
> > 
> > > I agree that we'd better not to ignore the sum of rss completely, but could you show me
> > > how the value 0MB/10MB can be used to caluculate the limit in 01/02 in detail ?
> > 
> > In your example, usage shows that the real usage of the cgroup is 20 MB
> > for 01 and 10 MB for 02.
> right.
> 
> > Today we show that we are using 40MB instead of
> > 30MB (when summed).
> Sorry, I can't understand here.
> If we sum usage_in_bytes in both groups, it would be 30MB.
> If we sum "actual rss(rss_file, rss_anon) via stat file" in both groups, it would be 30M.
> If we sum "total rss(rss_file, rss_anon) of all process via mm_counter" in both groups,
> it would be 40MB.
> 
> > If an administrator has to make a decision to say
> > add more resources, the one with 20MB would be the right place w.r.t.
> > memory.
> > 
> You mean he would add the additional resource to 00, right? Then, 
> the smaller "shared_usage_in_bytes" is, the more likely an administrator should
> add additional resources to the group ?
> 
> But when both /cgroup/memory/aa and /cgroup/memory/bb has 20MB as acutual usage,
> and aa has 10MB "shared"(used by multiple processes *in aa*) usage while bb has none,
> "shared_usage_in_bytes" is 10MB in aa and 0MB in bb(please consider there is
> no "shared" usage between aa and bb).
> Should an administrator consider bb is heavier than aa ? I don't think so.
> 
> IOW, "shared_usage_in_bytes" doesn't have any consistent meaning about which
> group is unfairly "heavy".
> 
> The problem here is, "shared_usage_in_bytes" doesn't show neither one of nor the sum
> of the following value(*IFF* we have only one cgroup, "shared_usage_in_bytes" would
> mean a), but it has no use in real case).
> 
>   a) memory usage used by multiple processes inside this group.
>   b) memory usage used by both processes inside this and another group.
>   c) memory usage not used by any processes inside this group, but used by
>      that of in another group.
> 
> IMHO, we should take account of all the above values to determine which group
> is unfairly "heavy". I agree that the bigger the size of a) is, the bigger
> "shared_usage_in_bytes" of the group would be, but we cannot know any information about
> the size of b) by it, becase those usages are included in both actual usage(rss via stat)
> and sum of rss(via mm_counter). To make matters warse, "shared_usage_in_bytes" has
> the opposite meaning about b), i.e., the more a processe in some group(foo) has actual
> charges in *another* group(baa), the bigger "shared_usage_in_bytes" in "foo" would be
> (as 00 and 01 in my example).
> 
> I would agree with you if you add interfaces to show some hints to users about above values,
> but "shared_usage_in_bytes" doesn't meet it at all.
> 
This is just an idea(At least, we need interfaces to read and reset them).

diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 385e29b..bf601f2 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
 					used by soft limit implementation */
 	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_THRESHOLDS, /* decrements on each page in/out.
 					used by threshold implementation */
+	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SHARED_IN_GROUP,
+	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SHARED_FROM_OTHERS,
 
 	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
 };
@@ -1707,8 +1709,25 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_commit_charge(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
 
 	lock_page_cgroup(pc);
 	if (unlikely(PageCgroupUsed(pc))) {
+		struct mem_cgroup *charged = pc->mem_cgroup;
+		struct mem_cgroup_stat *stat;
+		struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *cpustat;
+		int cpu;
+		int shared_type;
+
 		unlock_page_cgroup(pc);
 		mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(mem);
+
+		stat = &charged->stat;
+		cpu = get_cpu();
+		cpustat = &stat->cpustat[cpu];
+		if (charged == mem)
+			shared_type = MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SHARED_IN_GROUP;
+		else
+			shared_type = MEM_CGROUP_STAT_SHARED_FROM_OTHERS;
+		__mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe(cpustat, shared_type, 1);
+		put_cpu();
+
 		return;
 	}
 
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists