lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] memory cgroup: weak points of kmem accounting design
Hi Greg,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:04:00PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> I've found per memcg per cache type stats useful in answering "why is my
> container oom?" While these are kernel allocations, it is common for
> user space operations to cause these allocations (e.g. lots of open file
> descriptors). So I don't specifically need per memcg slabinfo formatted
> data, but at the least a per memcg per cache type active object count
> would be very useful. Thus I imagine each memcg would have an array of
> slab cache types each with per-cpu active object counters. Per-cpu is
> used to avoid trashing those counters between cpus as objects are
> allocated and freed.

Hmm, that sounds sane. One more argument for the current design.

> As you say only memcg shrinkable cache types would need list heads. I
> assume these per memcg shrinkable object list heads would be per cache
> type per cpu list heads for cache performance. Allocation of a dentry
> today uses the normal slab management structures. In this proposal I
> suspect the dentry would be dual indexed: once in the global slab/slub
> dentry lru and once in the per memcg dentry list. If true, this might
> be a hot path regression allocation speed regression.
>
> Do you have a shrinker design in mind? I suspect this new design would
> involve a per memcg dcache shrinker which grabs a big per-memcg dcache
> lock while walking the dentry list. The classic per superblock
> shrinkers would not used for memcg shrinking.

To be honest, I hadn't elaborated that in my mind when I sent this
e-mail, but now I realize that it doesn't look as if there's an easy way
to implement shrinkers in such a setup efficiently. I thought we could
keep each dentry/inode simultaneously in two list, global and memcg.
However, apart from resulting in memory wastes this, as you pointed out,
would result in a regression in operating on the lrus, which is
unacceptable.

That said, I admit my idea sounds crazy. I think sticking to Glauber's
design and trying to make it work is the best we can do now.

Thanks,
Vladimir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-21 18:01    [W:0.043 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site