On 01/18/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:10:00AM -0800, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 01/18/2013 12:11 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 04:14:10PM -0800, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> On 01/17/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> And then each object uses:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct lru_item {
>>>>> struct list_head global_list;
>>>>> struct list_head memcg_list;
>>>>> }
>>>> by objects you mean dentries, inodes, and the such, right?
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>>> Would it be acceptable to you?
>>>
>>> If it works the way I think it should, then yes.
>>>
>>>> We've been of course doing our best to avoid increasing the size of the
>>>> objects, therefore this is something we've never mentioned. However, if
>>>> it would be acceptable from the fs POV, this would undoubtedly make our
>>>> life extremely easier.
>>>
>>> I've been trying hard to work out how to avoid increasing the size
>>> of structures as well. But if we can't work out how to implement
>>> something sanely with only a single list head per object to work
>>> from, then increasing the size of objects is something that we need
>>> to consider if it solves all the problems we are trying to solve.
>>>
>>> i.e. if adding a second list head makes the code dumb, simple,
>>> obviously correct and hard to break then IMO it's a no-brainer.
>>> But we have to tick all the right boxes first...
>>>
>>
>> One of our main efforts recently has been trying to reduce memcg impact
>> when it is not in use, even if its compiled in. So what really bothers
>> me here is the fact that we are increasing the size of dentries and
>> inodes no matter what.
>>
>> Still within the idea of exploring the playing field, would an
>> indirection be worth it ?
>> We would increase the total per-object memory usage by 8 bytes instead
>> of 16: the dentry gets a pointer, and a separate allocation for the
>> list_lru.
>
> A separate allocation is really not an option. We can't do an
> allocation in where dentries/inodes/other objects are added to the
> LRU because they are under object state spinlocks, and adding a
> potential memory allocation failure to the "add to lru" case is
> pretty nasty, IMO.
>
That would of course happen on dentry creation time, not lru add time.
It is totally possible since at creation time, we already know if memcg
is enabled or not.
--
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>