[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod61XyMJzrvU0Wvp8iWV878rZQYsa407RhoZYeiJV5j5SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:46:44 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Dao <dqminh@...udflare.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: async flush memcg stats from perf sensitive codepaths
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:46 AM Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 05:42:57PM -0800, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Yes, the right fix would be to optimize the flushing code (but that
> > would require more work/time). However I still think letting
> > performance critical code paths to skip the sync flush would be good
> > in general. So, if the current patch is not to your liking we can
> > remove mem_cgroup_flush_stats() from workingset_refault().
>
> What about flushing just the subtree of the memcg where the refault
> happens?
> It doesn't reduce the overall work and there's still full-tree
> cgroup_rstat_lock but it should make the chunks of work smaller
> durations more regular.
>
We can try that and I will send a patch to Ivan and Daniel to try on
their workload to see the real impact of targeted memcg flushing.
However I am not very optimistic about it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists