linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memcg: rework inactive

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F437985.7060005@openvz.org>
Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:01:25 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: rework inactive_ratio logic

Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:24:42PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> This patch adds mem_cgroup->inactive_ratio calculated from hierarchical memory limit.
>> It updated at each limit change before shrinking cgroup to this new limit.
>> Ratios for all child cgroups are updated too, because parent limit can affect them.
>> Update precedure can be greatly optimized if its performance becomes the problem.
>> Inactive ratio for unlimited or huge limit does not matter, because we'll never hit it.
>>
>> At global reclaim always use global ratio from zone->inactive_ratio.
>> At mem-cgroup reclaim use inactive_ratio from target memory cgroup,
>> this is cgroup which hit its limit and cause this reclaimer invocation.
>>
>> Thus, global memory reclaimer will try to keep ratio for all lru lists in zone
>> above one mark, this guarantee that total ratio in this zone will be above too.
>> Meanwhile mem-cgroup will do the same thing for its lru lists in all zones, and
>> for all lru lists in all sub-cgroups in hierarchy.
>>
>> Also this patch removes some redundant code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
>
> I don't think we should take the zone ratio when we then proceed to
> scan a bunch of LRU lists that could individually be much smaller than
> the zone.  Especially since the ratio function is not a linear one.
>
> Otherwise the target ratios can be way too big for small lists, see
> the comment above mm/page_alloc.c::calculate_zone_inactive_ratio().
>
> Consequently, I also disagree on using sc->target_mem_cgroup.
>
> This whole mechanism is about balancing one specific pair of inactive
> vs. an active list according their size.  We shouldn't derive policy
> from numbers that are not correlated to this size.

Ok, maybe then we can move this inactive_ratio calculation right into
inactive_anon_is_low(). Then we can kill precalculated zone->inactive_ratio
and calculate it every time, even in non-memcg case, because zone-size also
not always correlate with anon lru size.
Looks like int_sqrt() is fast enough for this.
--
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/