linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] memcg: proportional fair vicitm node selection

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: <BANLkTin0zMftnK2a+ex07JNdbwvEMCjXXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:10:11 +0900
From:	Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] memcg: proportional fair vicitm node selection

2011/6/23 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>:
> On Thu 16-06-11 12:57:41, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> From 4fbd49697456c227c86f1d5b46f2cd2169bf1c5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:25:23 +0900
>> Subject: [PATCH 7/7] memcg: proportional fair node vicitm selection
>>
>> commit 889976 implements a round-robin scan of numa nodes for
>> LRU scanning of memcg at hitting limit.
>> But, round-robin is not very good.
>>
>> This patch implements a proportionally fair victim selection of nodes
>> rather than round-robin. The logic is fair against each node's weight.
>>
>> Each node's weight is calculated periodically and we build an node's
>> scheduling entity as
>>
>>      total_ticket = 0;
>>      for_each_node(node)
>>       node->ticket_start =  total_ticket;
>>         node->ticket_end   =  total_ticket + this_node's_weight()
>>         total_ticket = node->ticket_end;
>>
>> Then, each nodes has some amounts of tickets in proportion to its own weight.
>>
>> At selecting victim, a random number is selected and the node which contains
>> the random number in [ticket_start, ticket_end) is selected as vicitm.
>> This is a lottery scheduling algorithm.
>>
>> For quick search of victim, this patch uses bsearch().
>>
>> Test result:
>>   on 8cpu box with 2 nodes.
>>   limit memory to be 300MB and run httpd for 4096files/600MB working set.
>>   do (normalized) random access by apache-bench and see scan_stat.
>>   The test makes 40960 request. and see scan_stat.
>>   (Because a httpd thread just use 10% cpu, the number of threads will
>>    not be balanced between nodes. Then, file caches will not be balanced
>>    between nodes.)
>
> Have you also tried to test with balanced nodes? I mean, is there any
> measurable overhead?
>

Not enough yet. I checked OOM trouble this week :).

I may need to make another fake_numa setup + cpuset
to measurements. In usual path, new overhead is random32() and
bsearch().  I'll do some.

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/