From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Shi Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] per memcg lru_lock Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:25:14 +0800 Message-ID: <0f8e2bc0-96b4-f55a-51da-b53dac415dd7@linux.alibaba.com> References: <1566294517-86418-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <6ba1ffb0-fce0-c590-c373-7cbc516dbebd@oracle.com> <348495d2-b558-fdfd-a411-89c75d4a9c78@linux.alibaba.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Daniel Jordan , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko 在 2019/8/22 下午11:20, Daniel Jordan 写道: >> >>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-lru-file-readtwice> >>> It's also synthetic but it stresses lru_lock more than just anon alloc/free.  It hits the page activate path, which is where we see this lock in our database, and if enough memory is configured lru_lock also gets stressed during reclaim, similar to [1]. >> >> Thanks for the sharing, this patchset can not help the [1] case, since it's just relief the per container lock contention now. > > I should've been clearer.  [1] is meant as an example of someone suffering from lru_lock during reclaim.  Wouldn't your series help per-memcg reclaim? yes, I got your point, since the aim9 don't show much improvement, I am trying this case in containers. Thanks Alex