linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 03/17] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker

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: <94c282fd-1b5a-e959-b344-01a51fd5fc2e@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 22:12:47 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     vdavydov.dev@...il.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, pombredanne@...b.com, stummala@...eaurora.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, guro@...com,
        mka@...omium.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, longman@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
        ying.huang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, jbacik@...com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, lirongqing@...du.com, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/17] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker

On 03.07.2018 20:58, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:46:57PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> shrinker_idr now contains only memcg-aware shrinkers, so all bits from memcg map
>> may be potentially populated. In case of memcg-aware shrinkers and !memcg-aware
>> shrinkers share the same numbers like you suggest, this will lead to increasing
>> size of memcg maps, which is bad for memory consumption. So, memcg-aware shrinkers
>> should to have its own IDR and its own numbers. The tricks like allocation big
>> IDs for !memcg-aware shrinkers seem bad for me, since they make the code more
>> complicated.
> 
> Do we really have so very many !memcg-aware shrinkers?
> 
> $ git grep -w register_shrinker |wc
>      32     119    2221
> $ git grep -w register_shrinker_prepared |wc
>       4      13     268
> (that's an overstatement; one of those is the declaration, one the definition,
> and one an internal call, so we actually only have one caller of _prepared).
> 
> So it looks to me like your average system has one shrinker per
> filesystem, one per graphics card, one per raid5 device, and a few
> miscellaneous.  I'd be shocked if anybody had more than 100 shrinkers
> registered on their laptop.
> 
> I think we should err on the side of simiplicity and just have one IDR for
> every shrinker instead of playing games to solve a theoretical problem.

It just a standard situation for the systems with many containers. Every mount
introduce a new shrinker to the system, so it's easy to see a system with
100 or ever 1000 shrinkers. AFAIR, Shakeel said he also has the similar
configurations.

So, this problem is not theoretical, it's just a standard situation
for active consumer or Docker/etc.

>>> This will actually reduce the size of each shrinker and be more
>>> cache-efficient when calling the shrinkers.  I think we can also get
>>> rid of the shrinker_rwsem eventually, but let's leave it for now.
>>
>> This patchset does not make the cache-efficient bad, since without the patchset the situation
>> is so bad, that it's just impossible to talk about the cache efficiently,
>> so let's leave lockless iteration/etc for the future works.
> 
> The situation is that bad /for your use case/.  Not so much for others.
> You're introducing additional complexity here, and it'd be nice if we
> can remove some of the complexity that's already there.

You started from cache-efficienty, and now you moved to existing complexity.
I did some cleanups in this patchset, also there is Vladimir's patch, which
simplifies shrinker logic. Also there is already 17 patches.
Which already existing complexity you want to remove? I don't think there is
existing complexity directly connected to this patchset.