linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memcg: Optionally disable memcg by default using Kconfig

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: <20150520162421.GB2874@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 12:24:21 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linux-CGroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memcg: Optionally disable memcg by default using
 Kconfig

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:50:45PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> memcg was reported years ago to have significant overhead when unused. It
> has improved but it's still the case that users that have no knowledge of
> memcg pay a small performance penalty.
>
> This patch adds a Kconfig that controls whether memcg is enabled by default
> and a kernel parameter cgroup_enable= to enable it if desired. Anyone using
> oldconfig will get the historical behaviour. It is not an option for most
> distributions to simply disable MEMCG as there are users that require it
> but they should also be knowledgable enough to use cgroup_enable=.
>
> This was evaluated using aim9, a page fault microbenchmark and ebizzy
> but I'll focus on the page fault microbenchmark. It can be reproduced
> using pft from mmtests (https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests).  Edit
> configs/config-global-dhp__pagealloc-performance and update MMTESTS to
> only contain pft. This is the relevant part of the profile summary
> 
> /usr/src/linux-4.0-chargefirst-v2r1/mm/memcontrol.c                  3.7907   223277
>   __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event                                                  1.143%    67312
>   mem_cgroup_page_lruvec                                                       0.465%    27403
>   mem_cgroup_commit_charge                                                     0.381%    22452
>   uncharge_list                                                                0.332%    19543
>   mem_cgroup_update_lru_size                                                   0.284%    16704
>   get_mem_cgroup_from_mm                                                       0.271%    15952
>   mem_cgroup_try_charge                                                        0.237%    13982
>   memcg_check_events                                                           0.222%    13058
>   mem_cgroup_charge_statistics.isra.22                                         0.185%    10920
>   commit_charge                                                                0.140%     8235
>   try_charge                                                                   0.131%     7716
> 
> It's showing 3.79% overhead in memcontrol.c when no memcgs are in
> use. Applying the patch and disabling memcg reduces this to 0.51%
> 
> /usr/src/linux-4.0-disable-v2r1/mm/memcontrol.c                      0.5100    29304
>   mem_cgroup_page_lruvec                                                       0.161%     9267
>   mem_cgroup_update_lru_size                                                   0.154%     8872
>   mem_cgroup_try_charge                                                        0.153%     8768
>   mem_cgroup_commit_charge                                                     0.042%     2397
> 
> pft faults
>                                        4.0.0                  4.0.0
>                                  chargefirst                disable
> Hmean    faults/cpu-1 1509075.7561 (  0.00%) 1508934.4568 ( -0.01%)
> Hmean    faults/cpu-3 1339160.7113 (  0.00%) 1379512.0698 (  3.01%)
> Hmean    faults/cpu-5  874174.1255 (  0.00%)  875741.7674 (  0.18%)
> Hmean    faults/cpu-7  601370.9977 (  0.00%)  599938.2026 ( -0.24%)
> Hmean    faults/cpu-8  510598.8214 (  0.00%)  510663.5402 (  0.01%)
> Hmean    faults/sec-1 1497935.5274 (  0.00%) 1496585.7400 ( -0.09%)
> Hmean    faults/sec-3 3941920.1520 (  0.00%) 4050811.9259 (  2.76%)
> Hmean    faults/sec-5 3869385.7553 (  0.00%) 3922299.6112 (  1.37%)
> Hmean    faults/sec-7 3992181.4189 (  0.00%) 3988511.0065 ( -0.09%)
> Hmean    faults/sec-8 3986452.2204 (  0.00%) 3977706.7883 ( -0.22%)
> 
> Low thread counts get a small boost but it's within noise as memcg overhead
> does not dominate. It's not obvious at all at higher thread counts as other
> factors cause more problems. The overall breakdown of CPU usage looks like
> 
>                4.0.0       4.0.0
>         chargefirst-v2r1disable-v2r1
> User           41.81       41.45
> System        407.64      405.50
> Elapsed       128.17      127.06

This is a worst case microbenchmark doing nothing but anonymous page
faults (with THP disabled), and yet the performance difference is in
the noise.  I don't see why we should burden the user with making a
decision that doesn't matter in theory, let alone in practice.

We have CONFIG_MEMCG and cgroup_disable=memory, that should be plenty
for users that obsess about fluctuation in the noise.  There is no
reason to complicate the world further for everybody else.
--
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/