linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] memcg: always enable kmemcg on the default hierarchy
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:30:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150904133038.GC8220@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150901185157.GD18956@htj.dyndns.org>

On Tue 01-09-15 14:51:57, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The runtime overhead is not negligible and I do not see why everybody
> > should be paying that price by default. I can definitely see the reason why
> > somebody would want to enable the kmem accounting but many users will
> > probably never care because the kernel footprint would be in the noise
> > wrt. user memory.
> 
> We said the same thing about hierarchy support.  Sure, it's not the
> same but I think it's wiser to keep the architectural decisions at a
> higher level.  I don't think kmem overhead is that high but if this
> actually is a problem we'd need a per-cgroup knob anyway.

The overhead was around 4% for the basic kbuild test without ever
triggering the [k]memcg limit last time I checked. This was quite some
time ago and things might have changed since then. Even when this got
better there will still be _some_ overhead because we have to track that
memory and that is not free.

The question really is whether kmem accounting is so generally useful
that the overhead is acceptable and it is should be enabled by
default. From my POV it is a useful mitigation of untrusted users but
many loads simply do not care because they only care about a certain
level of isolation.

I might be wrong here of course but if the default should be switched it
would deserve a better justification with some numbers so that people
can see the possible drawbacks.

I agree that the per-cgroup knob is better than the global one. We
should also find consensus whether the legacy semantic of k < u limit
should be preserved. It made sense to me at the time it was introduced
but I recall that Vladimir found it not really helpful when we discussed
that at LSF. I found it interesting e.g. for the rough task count
limiting use case which people were asking for.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-04 13:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-28 15:25 [PATCHSET] memcg: improve high limit behavior and always enable kmemcg on dfl hier Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 15:25 ` [PATCH 1/4] memcg: fix over-high reclaim amount Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 17:06   ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-28 18:32     ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-31  7:51       ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-31 13:38         ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-01 12:51           ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-01 18:33             ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/4] memcg: flatten task_struct->memcg_oom Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 17:11   ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-28 15:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] memcg: punt high overage reclaim to return-to-userland path Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 16:36   ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 16:48     ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 20:32       ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 20:44         ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 22:06           ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-29  7:59             ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-30 15:52         ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 17:13   ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-28 17:56     ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 20:45     ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 20:53       ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 21:07         ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 21:14           ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 15:25 ` [PATCH 4/4] memcg: always enable kmemcg on the default hierarchy Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 16:49   ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-08-28 16:56     ` Tejun Heo
2015-08-28 17:14     ` Michal Hocko
2015-08-28 17:41       ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-01 12:44         ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-01 18:51           ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-04 13:30             ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-09-04 15:38               ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-09-07  9:39                 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-07 10:01                   ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-09-07 11:03                     ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-04 16:18               ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-07 10:54                 ` Michal Hocko
2015-09-08 18:50                   ` Tejun Heo
2015-11-05 17:30   ` Michal Hocko

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=20150904133038.GC8220@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).