[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7-dL90jwd2pywpaD8NfUByVU9Y809+RfvJABGdRASYUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:48:40 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] per memcg lru_lock
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue 20-08-19 17:48:23, Alex Shi wrote:
> > This patchset move lru_lock into lruvec, give a lru_lock for each of
> > lruvec, thus bring a lru_lock for each of memcg.
> >
> > Per memcg lru_lock would ease the lru_lock contention a lot in
> > this patch series.
> >
> > In some data center, containers are used widely to deploy different kind
> > of services, then multiple memcgs share per node pgdat->lru_lock which
> > cause heavy lock contentions when doing lru operation.
>
> Having some real world workloads numbers would be more than useful
> for a non trivial change like this. I believe googlers have tried
> something like this in the past but then didn't have really a good
> example of workloads that benefit. I might misremember though. Cc Hugh.
>
We, at Google, have been using per-memcg lru locks for more than 7
years. Per-memcg lru locks are really beneficial for providing
performance isolation if there are multiple distinct jobs/memcgs
running on large machines. We are planning to upstream our internal
implementation. I will let Hugh comment on that.
thanks,
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists