On Wed 04-04-18 10:18:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:08:55AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:08:59AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> > > unsigned long events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS];
> > > unsigned long nr_page_events;
> > > unsigned long targets[MEM_CGROUP_NTARGETS];
> > > +
> > > + /* for cgroup rstat delta calculation */
> > > + unsigned long last_events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS];
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter {
> > > @@ -233,7 +236,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> > >
> > > struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu __percpu *stat_cpu;
> > > atomic_long_t stat[MEMCG_NR_STAT];
> > > - atomic_long_t events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS];
> > > +
> > > + /* events is managed by cgroup rstat */
> > > + unsigned long long events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS]; /* local */
> > > + unsigned long long tree_events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS]; /* subtree */
> > > + unsigned long long pending_events[MEMCG_NR_EVENTS];/* propagation */
> >
> > The lazy updates are neat, but I'm a little concerned at the memory
> > footprint. On a 64-cpu machine for example, this adds close to 9000
> > words to struct mem_cgroup. And we really only need the accuracy for
> > the 4 cgroup items in memory.events, not all VM events and stats.
> >
> > Why not restrict the patch to those? It would also get rid of the
> > weird sharing between VM and cgroup enums.
>
> In fact, I wonder if we need per-cpuness for MEMCG_LOW, MEMCG_HIGH
> etc. in the first place. They describe super high-level reclaim and
> OOM events, so they're not nearly as hot as other VM events and
> stats. We could probably just have a per-memcg array of atomics.
Agreed!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
