All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:45:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YP6qXM_mXvsCtGSViOZTw=mwnfUS7cZGAES8F4w5mCQdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4e0e499-b922-4e9c-a0f8-02318ddf3b9b@email.android.com>

Hello,

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>>Hmmm... if the iteration is the problem, it shouldn't be difficult to
>>build list of children which should be iterated.  Would that make it
>>acceptable?
>
> You mean, a separate structure that tracks which groups are in excess of the limit?  Like the current tree? :)

Heh, yeah, realized that after writing it but it can be something much
simpler. ie. just linked list of children with soft limit configured.

> Kidding aside, yes, that would be better, and an unsorted list would probably be enough for the global case.

Yeap.

> To support target reclaim soft limits later on, we could maybe propagate tags upwards the cgroup tree when a group is in excess so that reclaim can be smarter about which subtrees to test for soft limits and which to skip during the soft limit pass.  The no-softlimit-set-anywhere case is then only a single tag test in the root cgroup.
>
> But starting with the list would be simple enough, delete a bunch of code, come with the same performance improvements etc.

Thanks.

--
tejun

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:45:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YP6qXM_mXvsCtGSViOZTw=mwnfUS7cZGAES8F4w5mCQdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4e0e499-b922-4e9c-a0f8-02318ddf3b9b@email.android.com>

Hello,

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
>>Hmmm... if the iteration is the problem, it shouldn't be difficult to
>>build list of children which should be iterated.  Would that make it
>>acceptable?
>
> You mean, a separate structure that tracks which groups are in excess of the limit?  Like the current tree? :)

Heh, yeah, realized that after writing it but it can be something much
simpler. ie. just linked list of children with soft limit configured.

> Kidding aside, yes, that would be better, and an unsorted list would probably be enough for the global case.

Yeap.

> To support target reclaim soft limits later on, we could maybe propagate tags upwards the cgroup tree when a group is in excess so that reclaim can be smarter about which subtrees to test for soft limits and which to skip during the soft limit pass.  The no-softlimit-set-anywhere case is then only a single tag test in the root cgroup.
>
> But starting with the list would be simple enough, delete a bunch of code, come with the same performance improvements etc.

Thanks.

--
tejun

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
	<kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse
	<walken-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Balbir Singh
	<bsingharora-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:45:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YP6qXM_mXvsCtGSViOZTw=mwnfUS7cZGAES8F4w5mCQdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4e0e499-b922-4e9c-a0f8-02318ddf3b9b-2ueSQiBKiTY7tOexoI0I+QC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>

Hello,

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>Hmmm... if the iteration is the problem, it shouldn't be difficult to
>>build list of children which should be iterated.  Would that make it
>>acceptable?
>
> You mean, a separate structure that tracks which groups are in excess of the limit?  Like the current tree? :)

Heh, yeah, realized that after writing it but it can be something much
simpler. ie. just linked list of children with soft limit configured.

> Kidding aside, yes, that would be better, and an unsorted list would probably be enough for the global case.

Yeap.

> To support target reclaim soft limits later on, we could maybe propagate tags upwards the cgroup tree when a group is in excess so that reclaim can be smarter about which subtrees to test for soft limits and which to skip during the soft limit pass.  The no-softlimit-set-anywhere case is then only a single tag test in the root cgroup.
>
> But starting with the list would be simple enough, delete a bunch of code, come with the same performance improvements etc.

Thanks.

--
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-17 17:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-13  7:46 [patch v3 0/3 -mm] Soft limit rework Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46   ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:34   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-15  8:34     ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-16 22:12   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:12     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:12     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:15     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:15       ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17  7:16       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:16         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:16         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:12     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:12       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17 16:02   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 16:02     ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 16:57     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17 16:57       ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17 17:27       ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 17:27         ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-17 17:45         ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2013-05-17 17:45           ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17 17:45           ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-20 14:44     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-20 14:44       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-20 14:44       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-21  6:53       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-21  6:53         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 1/3] memcg: track children in soft limit excess to improve soft limit Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 2/3] memcg, vmscan: Do not attempt soft limit reclaim if it would not scan anything Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13       ` [PATCH 3/3] memcg: Track all children over limit in the root Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:13         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:20       ` [PATCH] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support predicates Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:20         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-27 17:20         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 13:05       ` [patch v3 -mm 1/3] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 13:05         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 13:05         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 15:57         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 15:57           ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 20:01           ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-29 20:01             ` Johannes Weiner
2013-05-30  8:45             ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-30  8:45               ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 14:54       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-29 14:54         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-30  8:36         ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-30  8:36           ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 2/3] memcg: Get rid of soft-limit tree infrastructure Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46   ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:38   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-15  8:38     ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-16 22:16   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 22:16     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-13  7:46 ` [patch v3 -mm 3/3] vmscan, memcg: Do softlimit reclaim also for targeted reclaim Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46   ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-13  7:46   ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-15  8:42   ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-15  8:42     ` Glauber Costa
2013-05-17  7:50     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:50       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:50       ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-16 23:12   ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-16 23:12     ` Tejun Heo
2013-05-17  7:34     ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-17  7:34       ` 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='CAOS58YP6qXM_mXvsCtGSViOZTw=mwnfUS7cZGAES8F4w5mCQdA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    --cc=yinghan@google.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.