linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/11] mm: memcg: consolidate hierarchy iteration primitives

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: <20110920085302.GC27675@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:53:02 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/11] mm: memcg: consolidate hierarchy iteration
 primitives

On Tue 20-09-11 10:45:53, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:53:33PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon 12-09-11 12:57:18, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Memory control groups are currently bolted onto the side of
> > > traditional memory management in places where better integration would
> > > be preferrable.  To reclaim memory, for example, memory control groups
> > > maintain their own LRU list and reclaim strategy aside from the global
> > > per-zone LRU list reclaim.  But an extra list head for each existing
> > > page frame is expensive and maintaining it requires additional code.
> > > 
> > > This patchset disables the global per-zone LRU lists on memory cgroup
> > > configurations and converts all its users to operate on the per-memory
> > > cgroup lists instead.  As LRU pages are then exclusively on one list,
> > > this saves two list pointers for each page frame in the system:
> > > 
> > > page_cgroup array size with 4G physical memory
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: [    0.000000] allocated 31457280 bytes of page_cgroup
> > >   patched: [    0.000000] allocated 15728640 bytes of page_cgroup
> > > 
> > > At the same time, system performance for various workloads is
> > > unaffected:
> > > 
> > > 100G sparse file cat, 4G physical memory, 10 runs, to test for code
> > > bloat in the traditional LRU handling and kswapd & direct reclaim
> > > paths, without/with the memory controller configured in
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: 71.603(0.207) seconds
> > >   patched: 71.640(0.156) seconds
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: 79.558(0.288) seconds
> > >   patched: 77.233(0.147) seconds
> > > 
> > > 100G sparse file cat in 1G memory cgroup, 10 runs, to test for code
> > > bloat in the traditional memory cgroup LRU handling and reclaim path
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: 96.844(0.281) seconds
> > >   patched: 94.454(0.311) seconds
> > > 
> > > 4 unlimited memcgs running kbuild -j32 each, 4G physical memory, 500M
> > > swap on SSD, 10 runs, to test for regressions in kswapd & direct
> > > reclaim using per-memcg LRU lists with multiple memcgs and multiple
> > > allocators within each memcg
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: 717.722(1.440) seconds [ 69720.100(11600.835) majfaults ]
> > >   patched: 714.106(2.313) seconds [ 71109.300(14886.186) majfaults ]
> > > 
> > > 16 unlimited memcgs running kbuild, 1900M hierarchical limit, 500M
> > > swap on SSD, 10 runs, to test for regressions in hierarchical memcg
> > > setups
> > > 
> > >   vanilla: 2742.058(1.992) seconds [ 26479.600(1736.737) majfaults ]
> > >   patched: 2743.267(1.214) seconds [ 27240.700(1076.063) majfaults ]
> > 
> > I guess you want to have this in the first patch to have it for
> > reference once it gets to the tree, right? I have no objections but it
> > seems unrelated to the patch and so it might be confusing a bit. I
> > haven't seen other patches in the series so there is probably no better
> > place to put this.
> 
> Andrew usually hand-picks what's of long-term interest from the series
> description and puts it in the first patch.  I thought I'd save him
> the trouble.

Understood

[...]

> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index b76011a..912c7c7 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -781,83 +781,75 @@ struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >  	return memcg;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -/* The caller has to guarantee "mem" exists before calling this */
> > 
> > Shouldn't we have a similar comment that we have to keep a reference to
> > root if non-NULL. A mention about remember parameter and what is it used
> > for (hierarchical reclaim) would be helpful as well.
> 
> The only thing that dictates the lifetime of a memcg is its reference
> count, so having a reference count while operating on a memecg is not
> even a question for all existing memcg-internal callsites.

Fair enough.

> 
> But I did, in fact, add kernel-doc style documentation to
> mem_cgroup_iter() when it becomes a public interface in 5/11.  Can you
> take a look and tell me whether you are okay with that?

OK, I will comment on that patch once I get to it.

[...]

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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/