(2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This is my new take for the memcg kmem accounting. This should merge
> all of the previous comments from you guys, specially concerning the big churn
> inside the allocators themselves.
>
> My focus in this new round was to keep the changes in the cache internals to
> a minimum. To do that, I relied upon two main pillars:
>
> * Cristoph's unification series, that allowed me to put must of the changes
> in a common file. Even then, the changes are not too many, since the overal
> level of invasiveness was decreased.
> * Accounting is done directly from the page allocator. This means some pages
> can fail to be accounted, but that can only happen when the task calling
> kmem_cache_alloc or kmalloc is not the same task allocating a new page.
> This never happens in steady state operation if the tasks are kept in the
> same memcg. Naturally, if the page ends up being accounted to a memcg that
> is not limited (such as root memcg), that particular page will simply not
> be accounted.
>
> The dispatcher code stays (mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache), being the mechanism who
> guarantees that, during steady state operation, all objects allocated in a page
> will belong to the same memcg. I consider this a good compromise point between
> strict and loose accounting here.
>
2 questions.
- Do you have performance numbers ?
- Do you think user-memory memcg should be switched to page-allocator level accounting ?
(it will require some study for modifying current bached-freeing and per-cpu-stock
logics...)
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>