lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [rfc patch 0/6] mm: memcg naturalization
    On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:00:34PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
    > * Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> [2011-05-12 16:53:52]:
    >
    > > Hi!
    > >
    > > Here is a patch series that is a result of the memcg discussions on
    > > LSF (memcg-aware global reclaim, global lru removal, struct
    > > page_cgroup reduction, soft limit implementation) and the recent
    > > feature discussions on linux-mm.
    > >
    > > The long-term idea is to have memcgs no longer bolted to the side of
    > > the mm code, but integrate it as much as possible such that there is a
    > > native understanding of containers, and that the traditional !memcg
    > > setup is just a singular group. This series is an approach in that
    > > direction.
    > >
    > > It is a rather early snapshot, WIP, barely tested etc., but I wanted
    > > to get your opinions before further pursuing it. It is also part of
    > > my counter-argument to the proposals of adding memcg-reclaim-related
    > > user interfaces at this point in time, so I wanted to push this out
    > > the door before things are merged into .40.
    > >
    > > The patches are quite big, I am still looking for things to factor and
    > > split out, sorry for this. Documentation is on its way as well ;)
    > >
    > > #1 and #2 are boring preparational work. #3 makes traditional reclaim
    > > in vmscan.c memcg-aware, which is a prerequisite for both removal of
    > > the global lru in #5 and the way I reimplemented soft limit reclaim in
    > > #6.
    >
    > A large part of the acceptance would be based on what the test results
    > for common mm benchmarks show.

    I will try to ensure the following things:

    1. will not degrade performance on !CONFIG_MEMCG kernels

    2. will not degrade performance on CONFIG_MEMCG kernels without
    configured memcgs. This might be the most important one as most
    desktop/server distributions enable the memory controller per default

    3. will not degrade overall performance of workloads running
    concurrently in separate memory control groups. I expect some shifts,
    however, that even out performance differences.

    Please let me know what you consider common mm benchmarks.

    Thanks!

    Hannes


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-16 13:01    [W:4.157 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site