[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUBLrJOL6DGxmira@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:13:48 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, kernel@...nvz.org,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc: remove memcg accounting for sops objects in
do_semtimedop()
On Mon 13-09-21 21:32:25, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > > However Shakeel Butt pointed that there are much more popular objects
> > > with the same life time and similar memory consumption, the accounting
> > > of which was decided to be rejected for performance reasons.
> >
> > Is there any measurable performance impact in this particular case?
> >
>
> I don't think there was any regression report or any performance
> evaluation. Linus raised the concern on the potential performance
> impact. I suggested to backoff for this allocation for now and revisit
> again once we have improved the memcg accounting for kernel memory.
I am fine with the change, I am just not satisfied with the
justification. It is not really clear what the intention is except that
Linus wanted it. I have already asked Vasily to provide more
explanation. E.g. this part really begs for clarification
"
This object can consume up to 2 pages, syscall is sleeping one,
size and duration can be controlled by user, and this allocation
can be repeated by many thread at the same time.
"
It sounds like a problem, except it is not because? A worst case
scenario evaluation would be beneficial for example
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists