From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965512Ab0COROG (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:14:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47715 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965500Ab0COROD (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:14:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:12:09 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Andrea Righi Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Peter Zijlstra , Trond Myklebust , Suleiman Souhlal , Greg Thelen , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v7) Message-ID: <20100315171209.GI21127@redhat.com> References: <1268609202-15581-1-git-send-email-arighi@develer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1268609202-15581-1-git-send-email-arighi@develer.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:26:37AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time. > > Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to reclaim) > page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they > will not be able to consume more than their designated share of dirty pages and > will be forced to perform write-out if they cross that limit. > For me even with this version I see that group with 100M limit is getting much more BW. root cgroup ========== #time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1M 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 55.7979 s, 77.0 MB/s real 0m56.209s test1 cgroup with memory limit of 100M ====================================== # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile1 bs=4K count=1M 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 20.9252 s, 205 MB/s real 0m21.096s Note, these two jobs are not running in parallel. These are running one after the other. Vivek > The overall design is the following: > > - account dirty pages per cgroup > - limit the number of dirty pages via memory.dirty_ratio / memory.dirty_bytes > and memory.dirty_background_ratio / memory.dirty_background_bytes in > cgroupfs > - start to write-out (background or actively) when the cgroup limits are > exceeded > > This feature is supposed to be strictly connected to any underlying IO > controller implementation, so we can stop increasing dirty pages in VM layer > and enforce a write-out before any cgroup will consume the global amount of > dirty pages defined by the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio|dirty_bytes and > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio|dirty_background_bytes limits. > > Changelog (v6 -> v7) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > * introduce trylock_page_cgroup() to guarantee that lock_page_cgroup() > is never called under tree_lock (no strict accounting, but better overall > performance) > * do not account file cache statistics for the root cgroup (zero > overhead for the root cgroup) > * fix: evaluate cgroup free pages as at the minimum free pages of all > its parents > > Results > ~~~~~~~ > The testcase is a kernel build (2.6.33 x86_64_defconfig) on a Intel Core 2 @ > 1.2GHz: > > > - root cgroup: 11m51.983s > - child cgroup: 11m56.596s > > > - root cgroup: 11m51.742s > - child cgroup: 12m5.016s > > In the previous version of this patchset, using the "complex" locking scheme > with the _locked and _unlocked version of mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(), the > child cgroup required 11m57.896s and 12m9.920s with lock_page_cgroup()+irq_disabled. > > With this version there's no overhead for the root cgroup (the small difference > is in error range). I expected to see less overhead for the child cgroup, I'll > do more testing and try to figure better what's happening. > > In the while, it would be great if someone could perform some tests on a larger > system... unfortunately at the moment I don't have a big system available for > this kind of tests... > > Thanks, > -Andrea > > Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 36 +++ > fs/nfs/write.c | 4 + > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 87 ++++++- > include/linux/page_cgroup.h | 35 +++ > include/linux/writeback.h | 2 - > mm/filemap.c | 1 + > mm/memcontrol.c | 542 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > mm/page-writeback.c | 215 ++++++++++------ > mm/rmap.c | 4 +- > mm/truncate.c | 1 + > 10 files changed, 806 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23F826001DA for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:12:09 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v7) Message-ID: <20100315171209.GI21127@redhat.com> References: <1268609202-15581-1-git-send-email-arighi@develer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1268609202-15581-1-git-send-email-arighi@develer.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrea Righi Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Peter Zijlstra , Trond Myklebust , Suleiman Souhlal , Greg Thelen , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:26:37AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time. > > Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to reclaim) > page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they > will not be able to consume more than their designated share of dirty pages and > will be forced to perform write-out if they cross that limit. > For me even with this version I see that group with 100M limit is getting much more BW. root cgroup ========== #time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1M 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 55.7979 s, 77.0 MB/s real 0m56.209s test1 cgroup with memory limit of 100M ====================================== # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile1 bs=4K count=1M 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 20.9252 s, 205 MB/s real 0m21.096s Note, these two jobs are not running in parallel. These are running one after the other. Vivek > The overall design is the following: > > - account dirty pages per cgroup > - limit the number of dirty pages via memory.dirty_ratio / memory.dirty_bytes > and memory.dirty_background_ratio / memory.dirty_background_bytes in > cgroupfs > - start to write-out (background or actively) when the cgroup limits are > exceeded > > This feature is supposed to be strictly connected to any underlying IO > controller implementation, so we can stop increasing dirty pages in VM layer > and enforce a write-out before any cgroup will consume the global amount of > dirty pages defined by the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio|dirty_bytes and > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio|dirty_background_bytes limits. > > Changelog (v6 -> v7) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > * introduce trylock_page_cgroup() to guarantee that lock_page_cgroup() > is never called under tree_lock (no strict accounting, but better overall > performance) > * do not account file cache statistics for the root cgroup (zero > overhead for the root cgroup) > * fix: evaluate cgroup free pages as at the minimum free pages of all > its parents > > Results > ~~~~~~~ > The testcase is a kernel build (2.6.33 x86_64_defconfig) on a Intel Core 2 @ > 1.2GHz: > > > - root cgroup: 11m51.983s > - child cgroup: 11m56.596s > > > - root cgroup: 11m51.742s > - child cgroup: 12m5.016s > > In the previous version of this patchset, using the "complex" locking scheme > with the _locked and _unlocked version of mem_cgroup_update_page_stat(), the > child cgroup required 11m57.896s and 12m9.920s with lock_page_cgroup()+irq_disabled. > > With this version there's no overhead for the root cgroup (the small difference > is in error range). I expected to see less overhead for the child cgroup, I'll > do more testing and try to figure better what's happening. > > In the while, it would be great if someone could perform some tests on a larger > system... unfortunately at the moment I don't have a big system available for > this kind of tests... > > Thanks, > -Andrea > > Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 36 +++ > fs/nfs/write.c | 4 + > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 87 ++++++- > include/linux/page_cgroup.h | 35 +++ > include/linux/writeback.h | 2 - > mm/filemap.c | 1 + > mm/memcontrol.c | 542 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > mm/page-writeback.c | 215 ++++++++++------ > mm/rmap.c | 4 +- > mm/truncate.c | 1 + > 10 files changed, 806 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-) -- 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: email@kvack.org