On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 20-08-19 17:48:23, Alex Shi wrote: > > This patchset move lru_lock into lruvec, give a lru_lock for each of > > lruvec, thus bring a lru_lock for each of memcg. > > > > Per memcg lru_lock would ease the lru_lock contention a lot in > > this patch series. > > > > In some data center, containers are used widely to deploy different kind > > of services, then multiple memcgs share per node pgdat->lru_lock which > > cause heavy lock contentions when doing lru operation. > > Having some real world workloads numbers would be more than useful > for a non trivial change like this. I believe googlers have tried > something like this in the past but then didn't have really a good > example of workloads that benefit. I might misremember though. Cc Hugh. > We, at Google, have been using per-memcg lru locks for more than 7 years. Per-memcg lru locks are really beneficial for providing performance isolation if there are multiple distinct jobs/memcgs running on large machines. We are planning to upstream our internal implementation. I will let Hugh comment on that. thanks, Shakeel
