linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/10] memcg naturalization -rc4

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: <20111003190411.2c8c6b29.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:04:11 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	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>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] memcg naturalization -rc4

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:32:31 +0200
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:05:10PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:00:54 +0200
> > Thank you for your work. Now, I'm ok this series to be tested in -mm.
> > Ack. to all.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Do you have any plan, concerns ?
> 
> I would really like to get them into 3.2.  While it's quite intrusive,
> I stress-tested various scenarios for quite some time - tests that
> revealed more bugs in the existing memcg code than in my changes - so
> I don't expect too big surprises.  AFAICS, Google uses these patches
> internally already and their bug reports early on also helped iron out
> the most obvious problems.
> 
> What I am concerned about is the scalability on setups with thousands
> of tiny memcgs that go into global reclaim, as this would try to scan
> pages from all existing memcgs.  There is a mitigating factor in that
> concurrent reclaimers divide the memcgs to scan among themselves (the
> shared mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter), and with hundreds or thousands of
> memcgs, I expect several threads to go into reclaim upon global memory
> pressure at the same time in the common case.  I don't have the means
> to test this and I also don't know if such setups exist or are within
> the realm of sanity that we would like to support, anyway. 

As far as I hear, some users use hundreds of memcg in a host.

> If this
> shows up, I think the fix would be as easy as bailing out early from
> the hierarchy walk, but I would like to cross that bridge when we come
> to it.
> 
> Other than that, I see no reason to hold it off.  Traditional reclaim
> without memcgs except root_mem_cgroup - what most people care about -
> is mostly unaffected.  There is a real interest in the series, and
> maintaining it out-of-tree is a major pain and quite error prone.
> 
> What do you think?
> 

I think this should be merged/tested as soon as possible because this patch
must be a base for memcg patches which are now being developped.


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/