lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] mm: reparent slab memory on cgroup removal
Hello Roman,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 02:54:29PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> There is however a significant problem with reparenting of slab memory:
> there is no list of charged pages. Some of them are in shrinker lists,
> but not all. Introducing of a new list is really not an option.

True, introducing a list of charged pages would negatively affect
SL[AU]B performance since we would need to protect it with some kind
of lock.

>
> But fortunately there is a way forward: every slab page has a stable pointer
> to the corresponding kmem_cache. So the idea is to reparent kmem_caches
> instead of slab pages.
>
> It's actually simpler and cheaper, but requires some underlying changes:
> 1) Make kmem_caches to hold a single reference to the memory cgroup,
> instead of a separate reference per every slab page.
> 2) Stop setting page->mem_cgroup pointer for memcg slab pages and use
> page->kmem_cache->memcg indirection instead. It's used only on
> slab page release, so it shouldn't be a big issue.
> 3) Introduce a refcounter for non-root slab caches. It's required to
> be able to destroy kmem_caches when they become empty and release
> the associated memory cgroup.

Which means an unconditional atomic inc/dec on charge/uncharge paths
AFAIU. Note, we have per cpu batching so charging a kmem page in cgroup
v2 doesn't require an atomic variable modification. I guess you could
use some sort of per cpu ref counting though.

Anyway, releasing mem_cgroup objects, but leaving kmem_cache objects
dangling looks kinda awkward to me. It would be great if we could
release both, but I assume it's hardly possible due to SL[AU]B
complexity.

What about reusing dead cgroups instead? Yeah, it would be kinda unfair,
because a fresh cgroup would get a legacy of objects left from previous
owners, but still, if we delete a cgroup, the workload must be dead and
so apart from a few long-lived objects, there should mostly be cached
objects charged to it, which should be easily released on memory
pressure. Sorry if somebody's asked this question before - I must have
missed that.

Thanks,
Vladimir

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-18 10:16    [W:0.125 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site