linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:28:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151109140832.GE8916@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
> > Therefore this patch switches to the white list policy. Now kmalloc
> > users have to explicitly opt in by passing __GFP_ACCOUNT flag.
> > 
> > Currently, the list of accounted objects is quite limited and only
> > includes those allocations that (1) are known to be easily triggered
> > from userspace and (2) can fail gracefully (for the full list see patch
> > no. 5) and it still misses many object types. However, accounting only
> > those objects should be a satisfactory approximation of the behavior we
> > used to have for most sane workloads.
> 
> I am _all_ for this semantic I am just not sure what to do with the
> legacy kmem controller. Can we change its semantic? If we cannot do that

I think we can. If somebody reports a "bug" caused by this change, i.e.
basically notices that something that used to be accounted is not any
longer, it will be trivial to fix by adding __GFP_ACCOUNT where
appropriate. If it is not, e.g. if accounting of objects of a particular
type leads to intense false-sharing, we would end up disabling
accounting for it anyway.

> we would have to distinguish legacy and unified hierarchies during
> runtime and add the flag automagically for the first one (that would
> however require to keep __GFP_NOACCOUNT as well) which is all as clear
> as mud. But maybe the workloads which are using kmem legacy API can cope
> with that.
> 
> Anyway if we go this way then I think the kmem accounting would be safe
> to be enabled by default with the cgroup2.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Vladimir Davydov (5):
> >   Revert "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg"
> >   Revert "gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT"
> 
> The patch ordering would break the bisectability. I would simply squash

How's that? AFAICS the kernel should compile after any first N=1..5
patches of the series applied.

> both places into the patch which replaces the flag.
> 

IMO it is more readable the way it is, but I don't insist.

Thanks,
Vladimir

> >   memcg: only account kmem allocations marked as __GFP_ACCOUNT
> >   vmalloc: allow to account vmalloc to memcg
> >   Account certain kmem allocations to memcg

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-11-09 18:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-07 20:07 [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-07 20:07 ` [PATCH 1/5] Revert "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg" Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-07 20:07 ` [PATCH 2/5] Revert "gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT" Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-07 20:07 ` [PATCH 3/5] memcg: only account kmem allocations marked as __GFP_ACCOUNT Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-07 20:07 ` [PATCH 4/5] vmalloc: allow to account vmalloc to memcg Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-07 20:07 ` [PATCH 5/5] Account certain kmem allocations " Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-09 14:39   ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-10  8:07     ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-10 13:23       ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-09 14:08 ` [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Michal Hocko
2015-11-09 16:45   ` Johannes Weiner
2015-11-09 18:28   ` Vladimir Davydov [this message]
2015-11-09 18:54     ` Tejun Heo
2015-11-09 19:27       ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-09 19:32         ` Tejun Heo
2015-11-09 20:12           ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-09 20:30             ` Tejun Heo
2015-11-10  7:49               ` Vladimir Davydov
2015-11-11  8:12     ` 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=20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza \
    --to=vdavydov@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.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 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).