[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210415072130.GA1749436@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:30 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:54:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 15-04-21 10:53:00, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:28:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > Another approach may be to identify filesystem types that do not
> > > need memcg awareness and feed that into alloc_super() to set/clear
> > > the SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE flag. This could be based on fstype - most
> > > virtual filesystems that expose system information do not really
> > > need full memcg awareness because they are generally only visible to
> > > a single memcg instance...
> >
> > Would something like below be appropriate?
>
> No. First of all you are defining yet another way to say
> SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE which is messy.
Ok.
> And secondly why would shmem, proc
> and ramfs be any special and they would be ok to opt out? There is no
> single word about that reasoning in your changelog.
Right, I am only checking if the suggestion given by David (see above)
is indeed this. There are a few other things to take care of
which I shall if the overall direction of the patch turns
out to be acceptable.
Regards,
Bharata.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists