From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: xarray breaks thrashing detection and cgroup isolation
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 13:06:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190524170642.GA20546@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190524161146.GC1075@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:11:46AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > My point is that we cannot have random drivers' internal data
> > structures charge to and pin cgroups indefinitely just because they
> > happen to do the modprobing or otherwise interact with the driver.
> >
> > It makes no sense in terms of performance or cgroup semantics.
>
> But according to Roman, you already have that problem with the page
> cache.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190522222254.GA5700@castle/T/
>
> So this argument doesn't make sense to me.
You haven't addressed the rest of the argument though: why every user
of the xarray, and data structures based on it, should incur the
performance cost of charging memory to a cgroup, even when we have no
interest in tracking those allocations on behalf of a cgroup.
Which brings me to repeating the semantics argument: it doesn't make
sense to charge e.g. driver memory, which is arguably a shared system
resource, to whoever cgroup happens to do the modprobe / ioctl etc.
Anyway, this seems like a fairly serious regression, and it would make
sense to find a self-contained, backportable fix instead of something
that has subtle implications for every user of the xarray / ida code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-24 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-23 17:43 xarray breaks thrashing detection and cgroup isolation Johannes Weiner
2019-05-23 18:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-23 18:49 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-05-23 19:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-23 19:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-05-23 19:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-23 19:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-05-24 16:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-24 17:06 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2019-05-24 17:18 ` Shakeel Butt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190524170642.GA20546@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.