Re: [patch 00/10] memcg naturalization -rc4

[Johannes Weiner]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:05:10PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:00:54 +0200
> Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > this is the fourth revision of the memory cgroup naturalization
> > series.
> > 
> > The changes from v3 have mostly been documentation, changelog, and
> > naming fixes based on review feedback:
> > 
> >     o drop conversion of no longer existing zone-wide unevictable
> >       page rescue scanner
> >     o fix return value of mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim() in
> >       limit-shrinking mode (Michal)
> >     o rename @remember to @reclaim in mem_cgroup_iter()
> >     o convert vm_swappiness to global_reclaim() in the
> >       correct patch (Michal)
> >     o rename
> >       struct mem_cgroup_iter_state -> struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter
> >       and
> >       struct mem_cgroup_iter -> struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie
> >       (Michal)
> >     o added/amended comments and changelogs based on feedback (Michal, Kame)
> > 
> > Thanks for the review and feedback, guys, it's much appreciated!
> > 
> 
> Thank you for your work. Now, I'm ok this series to be tested in -mm.
> Ack. to all.

Thanks!

> Do you have any plan, concerns ?

I would really like to get them into 3.2.  While it's quite intrusive,
I stress-tested various scenarios for quite some time - tests that
revealed more bugs in the existing memcg code than in my changes - so
I don't expect too big surprises.  AFAICS, Google uses these patches
internally already and their bug reports early on also helped iron out
the most obvious problems.

What I am concerned about is the scalability on setups with thousands
of tiny memcgs that go into global reclaim, as this would try to scan
pages from all existing memcgs.  There is a mitigating factor in that
concurrent reclaimers divide the memcgs to scan among themselves (the
shared mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter), and with hundreds or thousands of
memcgs, I expect several threads to go into reclaim upon global memory
pressure at the same time in the common case.  I don't have the means
to test this and I also don't know if such setups exist or are within
the realm of sanity that we would like to support, anyway.  If this
shows up, I think the fix would be as easy as bailing out early from
the hierarchy walk, but I would like to cross that bridge when we come
to it.

Other than that, I see no reason to hold it off.  Traditional reclaim
without memcgs except root_mem_cgroup - what most people care about -
is mostly unaffected.  There is a real interest in the series, and
maintaining it out-of-tree is a major pain and quite error prone.

What do you think?

Thanks,

	Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/