On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:00:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 17-10-14 10:40:11, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:20:36PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On cgroup deletion, outstanding page cache charges are moved to the > > > parent group so that they're not lost and can be reclaimed during > > > pressure on/inside said parent. But this reparenting is fairly tricky > > > and its synchroneous nature has led to several lock-ups in the past. > > > > > > Since css iterators now also include offlined css, memcg iterators can > > > be changed to include offlined children during reclaim of a group, and > > > leftover cache can just stay put. > > > > > > There is a slight change of behavior in that charges of deleted groups > > > no longer show up as local charges in the parent. But they are still > > > included in the parent's hierarchical statistics. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 218 +------------------------------------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 217 deletions(-) > > > > I do like the stats :-) However, as I've already mentioned, on big > > machines we can end up with hundred of thousands of dead css's. > > css->id is bound to the css life so this is bound to the maximum number > of allowed cgroups AFAIR. It is true that dead memcgs might block > creation of new. This is a good point. It would be a problem either when > there is no reclaim (global or memcg) or when groups are very short > lived. One possible way out would be counting dead memcgs and kick > background mem_cgroup_force_empty loop over those that are dead once we > hit a threshold. This should be pretty trivial to implement. Right, this shouldn't be a problem. > > Iterating over all of them during reclaim may result in noticeable lags. > > One day we'll have to do something about that I guess. > > > > Another issue is that AFAICT currently we can't have more than 64K > > cgroups due to the MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX limit.The limit exists, because we > > use css ids for tagging swap entries and we don't want to spend too much > > memory on this. May be, we should simply use the mem_cgroup pointer > > instead of the css id? > > We are using the id to reduce the memory footprint. We cannot effort 8B > per each swappage (we can have GBs of swap space in the system). >From my experience nowadays most servers have much more RAM than swap space, that's why I'm wondering if it really makes any difference to have 2 bytes allocated per swap entry vs 8 bytes. > > OTOH, the reparenting code looks really ugly. And we can't easily > > reparent swap and kmem. So I think it's a reasonable change. > > At least swap shouldn't be a big deal. Hugh already had a patch for > that. You would simply have to go over all swap entries and change the > id. kmem should be doable as well as you have already shown in your > patches. The main question is. Do we really need it? I think we are good > now and should make the code more complicated once this starts being a > practical problem. For kmem it isn't that simple. We can't merge slab caches due to their high performance nature, so we have no choice rather having them hanging around after css death attached either to the dead css or some other intermediate structure (a kind of kmem context). But I agree there's no point bothering until nobody complains. Thanks, Vladimir -- 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>