[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg
    On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Glauber Costa <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > This is my current attempt at getting the kmem controller
    > into a mergeable state. IMHO, all the important bits are there, and it should't
    > change *that* much from now on. I am, however, expecting at least a couple more
    > interactions before we sort all the edges out.

    Thanks a lot for doing this.

    > This series works for both the slub and the slab. One of my main goals was to
    > make sure that the interfaces we are creating actually makes sense for both
    > allocators.
    > I did some adaptations to the slab-specific patches, but the bulk of it
    > comes from Suleiman's patches. I did the best to use his patches
    > as-is where possible so to keep authorship information. When not possible,
    > I tried to be fair and quote it in the commit message.
    > In this series, all existing caches are created per-memcg after its first hit.
    > The main reason is, during discussions in the memory summit we came into
    > agreement that the fragmentation problems that could arise from creating all
    > of them are mitigated by the typically small quantity of caches in the system
    > (order of a few megabytes total for sparsely used caches).
    > The lazy creation from Suleiman is kept, although a bit modified. For instance,
    > I now use a locked scheme instead of cmpxcgh to make sure cache creation won't
    > fail due to duplicates, which simplifies things by quite a bit.

    I actually noticed that, at least for slab, the cmpxchg could never
    fail due to kmem_cache_create() already making sure that duplicate
    caches could not be created at the same time, while holding

    I do like your simplification though.

    > The slub is a bit more complex than what I came up with in my slub-only
    > series. The reason is we did not need to use the cache-selection logic
    > in the allocator itself - it was done by the cache users. But since now
    > we are lazy creating all caches, this is simply no longer doable.
    > I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
    > of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
    > series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
    > user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
    > to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
    > is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
    > that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
    > shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
    > out of the experimental state.

    We will have to be careful for cache destruction.
    I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset.

    I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when
    destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in
    pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in
    the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be
    moved into the cgroup).

    -- Suleiman

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-01 00:21    [W:0.027 / U:7.892 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site