lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/3] Implementation of cgroup isolation
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:39:57 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Memory cgroups can be currently used to throttle memory usage of a group of
> processes. It, however, cannot be used for an isolation of processes from
> the rest of the system because all the pages that belong to the group are
> also placed on the global LRU lists and so they are eligible for the global
> memory reclaim.
>
> This patchset aims at providing an opt-in memory cgroup isolation. This
> means that a cgroup can be configured to be isolated from the rest of the
> system by means of cgroup virtual filesystem (/dev/memctl/group/memory.isolated).
>
> Isolated mem cgroup can be particularly helpful in deployments where we have
> a primary service which needs to have a certain guarantees for memory
> resources (e.g. a database server) and we want to shield it off the
> rest of the system (e.g. a burst memory activity in another group). This is
> currently possible only with mlocking memory that is essential for the
> application(s) or a rather hacky configuration where the primary app is in
> the root mem cgroup while all the other system activity happens in other
> groups.
>
> mlocking is not an ideal solution all the time because sometimes the working
> set is very large and it depends on the workload (e.g. number of incoming
> requests) so it can end up not fitting in into memory (leading to a OOM
> killer). If we use mem. cgroup isolation instead we are keeping memory resident
> and if the working set goes wild we can still do per-cgroup reclaim so the
> service is less prone to be OOM killed.
>
> The patch series is split into 3 patches. First one adds a new flag into
> mem_cgroup structure which controls whether the group is isolated (false by
> default) and a cgroup fs interface to set it.
> The second patch implements interaction with the global LRU. The current
> semantic is that we are putting a page into a global LRU only if mem cgroup
> LRU functions say they do not want the page for themselves.
> The last patch prevents from soft reclaim if the group is isolated.
>
> I have tested the patches with the simple memory consumer (allocating
> private and shared anon memory and SYSV SHM).
>
> One instance (call it big consumer) running in the group and paging in the
> memory (>90% of cgroup limit) and sleeping for the rest of its life. Then I
> had a pool of consumers running in the same cgroup which page in smaller
> amount of memory and paging them in the loop to simulate in group memory
> pressure (call them sharks).
> The sum of consumed memory is more than memory.limit_in_bytes so some
> portion of the memory is swapped out.
> There is one consumer running in the root cgroup running in parallel which
> makes a pressure on the memory (to trigger background reclaim).
>
> Rss+cache of the group drops down significantly (~66% of the limit) if the
> group is not isolated. On the other hand if we isolate the group we are
> still saturating the group (~97% of the limit). I can show more
> comprehensive results if somebody is interested.
>

Isn't it the same result with the case where no cgroup is used ?
What is the problem ?
Why it's not a problem of configuration ?
IIUC, you can put all logins to some cgroup by using cgroupd/libgcgroup.

> Thanks for comments.
>


Maybe you just want "guarantee".
At 1st thought, this approarch has 3 problems. And memcg is desgined
never to prevent global vm scans,

1. This cannot be used as "guarantee". Just a way for "don't steal from me!!!"
This just implements a "first come, first served" system.
I guess this can be used for server desgines.....only with very very careful play.
If an application exits and lose its memory, there is no guarantee anymore.
2. Even with isolation, a task in memcg can be killed by OOM-killer at
global memory shortage.

3. it seems this will add more page fragmentation if implemented poorly, IOW,
can this be work with compaction ?



I think of other approaches.

1. cpuset+nodehotplug enhances.
At boot, hide most of memory from the system by boot option.
You can rename node-id of "all unused memory" and create arbitrary nodes
if the kernel has an interface. You can add a virtual nodes and move
pages between nodes by renaming it.

This will allow you to create a safe box dynamically. If you move pages in
the order of MAX_ORDER, you don't add any fragmentation.
(But with this way, you need to avoid tasks in root cgrou, too.)


2. allow a mount option to link ROOT cgroup's LRU and add limit for
root cgroup. Then, softlimit will work well.
(If softlimit doesn't work, it's bug. That will be an enhancement point.)


Thanks,
-Kame





















\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-28 13:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans