linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v7)

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: <20100315171209.GI21127@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:12:09 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v7)

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:26:37AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
> 
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they
> will not be able to consume more than their designated share of dirty pages and
> will be forced to perform write-out if they cross that limit.
> 

For me even with this version I see that group with 100M limit is getting
much more BW.

root cgroup
==========
#time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1M
4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 55.7979 s, 77.0 MB/s

real	0m56.209s

test1 cgroup with memory limit of 100M
======================================
# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile1 bs=4K count=1M
4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 20.9252 s, 205 MB/s

real	0m21.096s

Note, these two jobs are not running in parallel. These are running one
after the other.

Vivek

> The overall design is the following:
> 
>  - account dirty pages per cgroup
>  - limit the number of dirty pages via memory.dirty_ratio / memory.dirty_bytes
>    and memory.dirty_background_ratio / memory.dirty_background_bytes in
>    cgroupfs
>  - start to write-out (background or actively) when the cgroup limits are
>    exceeded
> 
> This feature is supposed to be strictly connected to any underlying IO
> controller implementation, so we can stop increasing dirty pages in VM layer
> and enforce a write-out before any cgroup will consume the global amount of
> dirty pages defined by the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio|dirty_bytes and
> /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio|dirty_background_bytes limits.
> 
> Changelog (v6 -> v7)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  * introduce trylock_page_cgroup() to guarantee that lock_page_cgroup()
>    is never called under tree_lock (no strict accounting, but better overall
>    performance)
>  * do not account file cache statistics for the root cgroup (zero
>    overhead for the root cgroup)
>  * fix: evaluate cgroup free pages as at the minimum free pages of all
>    its parents
> 
> Results
> ~~~~~~~
> The testcase is a kernel build (2.6.33 x86_64_defconfig) on a Intel Core 2 @
> 1.2GHz:
> 
> <before>
>  - root  cgroup:	11m51.983s
>  - child cgroup:	11m56.596s
> 
> <after>
>  - root cgroup:		11m51.742s
>  - child cgroup:	12m5.016s
> 
> In the previous version of this patchset, using the "complex" locking scheme
> with the _locked and _unlocked version of mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(), the
> child cgroup required 11m57.896s and 12m9.920s with lock_page_cgroup()+irq_disabled.
> 
> With this version there's no overhead for the root cgroup (the small difference
> is in error range). I expected to see less overhead for the child cgroup, I'll
> do more testing and try to figure better what's happening.
> 
> In the while, it would be great if someone could perform some tests on a larger
> system... unfortunately at the moment I don't have a big system available for
> this kind of tests...
> 
> Thanks,
> -Andrea
> 
>  Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt |   36 +++
>  fs/nfs/write.c                   |    4 +
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h       |   87 ++++++-
>  include/linux/page_cgroup.h      |   35 +++
>  include/linux/writeback.h        |    2 -
>  mm/filemap.c                     |    1 +
>  mm/memcontrol.c                  |  542 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  mm/page-writeback.c              |  215 ++++++++++------
>  mm/rmap.c                        |    4 +-
>  mm/truncate.c                    |    1 +
>  10 files changed, 806 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)
--
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/