From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61E826B00EE for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:34:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:33:40 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: drain all stocks for the cgroup before read usage Message-ID: <20110907213340.GA7690@shutemov.name> References: <1315098933-29464-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name> <20110905085913.8f84278e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110905101607.cd946a46.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110905101607.cd946a46.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:16:07AM +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:59:13 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 04:15:33 +0300 > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > > > > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" > > > > > > Currently, mem_cgroup_usage() for non-root cgroup returns usage > > > including stocks. > > > > > > Let's drain all socks before read resource counter value. It makes > > > memory{,.memcg}.usage_in_bytes and memory.stat consistent. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov > > > > Hmm. This seems costly to me. > > > > If a user chesk usage_in_bytes in a memcg once per 1sec, > > the kernel will call schedule_work on cpus once per 1sec. > > So, IMHO, I don't like this. > > > I agree. > > We discussed a similar topic on the thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/18/212. > And, we added the memory.txt: > --- > 5.5 usage_in_bytes > > For efficiency, as other kernel components, memory cgroup uses some optimization > to avoid unnecessary cacheline false sharing. usage_in_bytes is affected by the > method and doesn't show 'exact' value of memory(and swap) usage, it's an fuzz > value for efficient access. (Of course, when necessary, it's synchronized.) > If you want to know more exact memory usage, you should use RSS+CACHE(+SWAP) > value in memory.stat(see 5.2). > --- Agree, thanks. Should we have field 'ram' (or 'memory') for rss+cache in memory.stat? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org