linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 5/5] memcg: fix percpu cached charge draining frequency

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:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:12:45 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 5/5] memcg: fix percpu cached charge draining
 frequency

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:36:51 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Mon 13-06-11 12:16:48, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > From 18b12e53f1cdf6d7feed1f9226c189c34866338c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:25:43 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH 5/5] memcg: fix percpu cached charge draining frequency
> > 
> >  For performance, memory cgroup caches some "charge" from res_counter
> >  into per cpu cache. This works well but because it's cache,
> >  it needs to be flushed in some cases. Typical cases are
> >          1. when someone hit limit.
> >          2. when rmdir() is called and need to charges to be 0.
> > 
> > But "1" has problem.
> > 
> > Recently, with large SMP machines, we see many kworker runs because
> > of flushing memcg's cache. Bad things in implementation are
> > that even if a cpu contains a cache for memcg not related to
> > a memcg which hits limit, drain code is called.
> > 
> > This patch does
> > 	D) don't call at softlimit reclaim.
> 
> I think this needs some justification. The decision is not that
> obvious IMO. I would say that this is a good decision because cached
> charges will not help to free any memory (at least not directly) during
> background reclaim. What about something like:
> "
> We are not draining per cpu cached charges during soft limit reclaim 
> because background reclaim doesn't care about charges. It tries to free
> some memory and charges will not give any.
> Cached charges might influence only selection of the biggest soft limit
> offender but as the call is done only after the selection has been
> already done it makes no change.
> "
> 
> Anyway, wouldn't it be better to have this change separate from the
> async draining logic change?

Hmm. I think calling "draining" at softlimit is just a bug.

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/