Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: Extend slab/shrink to shrink all the memcg caches

Waiman Long
2019-07-03T15:14:50Z

On 7/3/19 10:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-07-19 09:12:13, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 7/3/19 2:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 02-07-19 14:37:30, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> Currently, a value of '1" is written to /sys/kernel/slab/<slab>/shrink
>>>> file to shrink the slab by flushing all the per-cpu slabs and free
>>>> slabs in partial lists. This applies only to the root caches, though.
>>>>
>>>> Extends this capability by shrinking all the child memcg caches and
>>>> the root cache when a value of '2' is written to the shrink sysfs file.
>>> Why do we need a new value for this functionality? I would tend to think
>>> that skipping memcg caches is a bug/incomplete implementation. Or is it
>>> a deliberate decision to cover root caches only?
>> It is just that I don't want to change the existing behavior of the
>> current code. It will definitely take longer to shrink both the root
>> cache and the memcg caches.
> Does that matter? To whom and why? I do not expect this interface to be
> used heavily.
The only concern that I can see is the fact that I need to take the
slab_mutex when iterating the memcg list to prevent concurrent
modification. That may have some impact on other applications running in
the system. However, I can put a precaution statement on the user-doc to
discuss the potential performance impact.
>> If we all agree that the only sensible
>> operation is to shrink root cache and the memcg caches together. I am
>> fine just adding memcg shrink without changing the sysfs interface
>> definition and be done with it.
> The existing documentation is really modest on the actual semantic:
> Description:
> The shrink file is written when memory should be reclaimed from
> a cache. Empty partial slabs are freed and the partial list is
> sorted so the slabs with the fewest available objects are used
> first.
>
> which to me sounds like all slabs are free and nobody should be really
> thinking of memcgs. This is simply drop_caches kinda thing. We surely do
> not want to drop caches only for the root memcg for /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> right?
>
I am planning to reword the document to make the effect of using this
sysfs file more explicit.

Cheers,
Longman