(2012/06/05 11:53), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
(2012/05/30 23:38), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V"<aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
We will use it later to make page_cgroup track the hugetlb cgroup information.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V<aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 +-
include/linux/page_cgroup.h | 8 ++++----
init/Kconfig | 4 ++++
mm/Makefile | 3 ++-
mm/memcontrol.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
5 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index 2427706..2483cc5 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -1052,7 +1052,7 @@ struct mem_section {
/* See declaration of similar field in struct zone */
unsigned long *pageblock_flags;
-#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
+#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_CGROUP
/*
* If !SPARSEMEM, pgdat doesn't have page_cgroup pointer. We use
* section. (see memcontrol.h/page_cgroup.h about this.)
diff --git a/include/linux/page_cgroup.h b/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
index a88cdba..7bbfe37 100644
--- a/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
+++ b/include/linux/page_cgroup.h
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ enum {
#ifndef __GENERATING_BOUNDS_H
#include<generated/bounds.h>
-#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
+#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_CGROUP
#include<linux/bit_spinlock.h>
/*
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ enum {
*/
struct page_cgroup {
unsigned long flags;
- struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup;
+ struct cgroup *cgroup;
};
This patch seems very bad.
I had to change that to
struct page_cgroup {
unsigned long flags;
struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
};
to get memcg to work. We end up changing css.cgroup on cgroupfs mount/umount.
Hmm, then pointer to memcg can be calculated by this *css.
Ok to this.
- What is the performance impact to memcg ? Doesn't this add extra overheads
to memcg lookup ?
Considering that we are stashing cgroup_subsys_state, it should be a
simple addition. I haven't measured the exact numbers. Do you have any
suggestion on the tests I can run ?
copy-on-write, parallel page fault, file creation/deletion etc..
- Hugetlb reuquires much more smaller number of tracking information rather
than memcg requires. I guess you can record the information into page->private
if you want.
So If we end up tracking page cgroup in struct page all these extra over
head will go away. And in most case we would have both memcg and hugetlb
enabled by default.
- This may prevent us from the work 'reducing size of page_cgroup'
by reducing you mean moving struct page_cgroup info to struct page
itself ? If so this should not have any impact right ?
I'm not sure but....doesn't this change bring impact to rules around
(un)lock_page_cgroup() and pc->memcg overwriting algorithm ?
Let me think....but maybe discussing without patch was wrong. sorry.
Most of the requirement of hugetlb should be similar to memcg.
Yes and No. hugetlb just requires 1/HUGEPAGE_SIZE of tracking information.
So, as Michal pointed out, if the user _really_ want to avoid
overheads of memcg, the effect cgroup_disable=memory should be kept.
If you use page_cgroup, you cannot save memory by the boot option.
This makes the points 'creating hugetlb only subsys for avoiding memcg overheads'
unclear. You don't need tracking information per page and it can be dynamically
allocated. Or please range-tracking as Michal proposed.
So, strong Nack to this. I guess you can use page->private or some entries in
struct page, you have many pages per accounting units. Please make an effort
to avoid using page_cgroup.
HugeTLB already use page->private of compound page head to track subpool
pointer. So we won't be able to use page->private.
You can use other pages than head/tails.
For example,I think you have 512 pages per 2M pages.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>