[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FAD675B.6020709@parallels.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:24:11 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/29] slub: always get the cache from its page in
kfree
On 05/11/2012 04:20 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>>> I see that. But there are other subsystems from slab allocators that do
>>> the same. There are also objects that may be used by multiple processes.
>>
>> This is also true for normal user pages. And then, we do what memcg does:
>> first one to touch, gets accounted. I don't think deviating from the memcg
>> behavior for user pages makes much sense here.
>>
>> A cache won't go away while it still have objects, even after the memcg is
>> removed (it is marked as dead)
>
> Ok so we will have some dead pages around that are then repatriated to
> the / set?
No, they are not repatriated. I actually wrote code for that once in my
first series, but it was the general feeling at the time that it was too
complicated. (and I only tried for the slub, not slab)
So instead, we just keep the cache around, until the objects go away.
It will show in slabinfo as dentry(css_id:memcgname)dead
For the record, I wrote that code because I found a nice feature, but I
totally agree with the complicated part.
Also, in normal scenarios, dead caches are not expected to be common.
Most of them should go away as memcg dies.
>>> Hmmm.. Would be better to have a hierachy there. /proc/slabinfo is more
>>> legacy.
>>
>> I can take a look at that then. Assuming you agree with all the rest, is
>> looking into that a pre-requisite for merging, or is something that can be
>> deferred for a phase2 ? (We still don't do shrinkers, for instance, so this is
>> sure to have a phase2)
>
> Not a prerequisite for merging but note that I intend to rework the
> allocators to extract common code so that they have the same sysfs
> interface, error reporting and failure scenarios. We can at that time
> also add support for /sys/kernel/slab to memcg. (/sys/memcg/<name>/slab/* ?)
Yes, that would be a good plan.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists