On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:25:12 +0900 (JST) Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >I've just noticed that most of overhead comes from the spin-locks > > >when reclaiming the pages inside mem_cgroups and the spin-locks to > > >protect the links between pages and page_cgroups. > > Overhead between page <-> page_cgroup lock is cannot be catched by > > lock_stat now.Do you have numbers ? > > But ok, there are too many locks ;( > > The problem is that every time the lock is held, the associated > cache line is flushed. I think "page" and "page_cgroup" is not so heavly shared object in fast path. foot-print is also important here. (anyway, I'd like to remove lock_page_cgroup() when I find a chance) > > > >The latter overhead comes from the policy your team has chosen > > >that page_cgroup structures are allocated on demand. I still feel > > >this approach doesn't make any sense because linux kernel tries to > > >make use of most of the pages as far as it can, so most of them > > >have to be assigned its related page_cgroup. It would make us happy > > >if page_cgroups are allocated at the booting time. > > > > > Now, multi-sizer-page-cache is discussed for a long time. If it's our > > direction, on-demand page_cgroup make sense. > > I don't think I can agree to this. > When multi-sized-page-cache is introduced, some data structures will be > allocated to manage multi-sized-pages. maybe no. it will be encoded into struct page. > I think page_cgroups should be allocated at the same time. > This approach will make things simple. yes, of course. > > It seems like the on-demand allocation approach leads not only > overhead but complexity and a lot of race conditions. > If you allocate page_cgroups when allocating page structures, > You can get rid of most of the locks and you don't have to care about > allocation error of page_cgroups anymore. > > And it will also give us flexibility that memcg related data can be > referred/updated inside critical sections. > But it's not good for the systems with small "NORMAL" pages. This discussion should be done again when more users of page_group appears and it's overhead is obvious. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
