From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0671EC433ED for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDD1611CD for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231318AbhDOHWJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:22:09 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52004 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231215AbhDOHWF (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:22:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13F741MW035099; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:21:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=Ra8XZsRoPt3RWkSm6Y8Gra/xkXf+XdRa8cOlLiOVnHg=; b=dOB/a5DX4rJpVOp6IcsPIpwNPbGYDuEctJ+H9pCkE8f+YWFb47LTG4oy3vafO2eX+RBM xezsLhbHgnUXhD+yH6UO4OGi8yxcrZ6TMK2D1vxf5UI0KLfH5oGEKZTRtv1Xj1b8at3q tDiDSrViudKqmFlq+J85waGl2+0pYEMXc3JR2W+xHfH519kFTSVRiBj8gIw0krRUUihR YBZJcuGGXFUTmTeXG5WY+Cdh7v+Eo8Hp98J0+wFifj55N0pmus/85U14C5zRKlxvfNAr Ts5g2xJSBCPX+Fm93e9cN7VH7aRVM7b/LzLmtLyOA1kfZqa3M5sJzRCwBvGa9ntEhD5H qA== Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37xbpt6n4g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:21:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13F77FlA026328; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:36 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37u39hkqmn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:36 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13F7LYIP32178432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:34 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4C1A405B; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984CCA4054; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from in.ibm.com (unknown [9.77.201.251]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:21:32 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:30 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao To: Michal Hocko Cc: Dave Chinner , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers Message-ID: <20210415072130.GA1749436@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: bharata@linux.ibm.com References: <20210405054848.GA1077931@in.ibm.com> <20210406222807.GD1990290@dread.disaster.area> <20210415052300.GA1662898@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: VKGRN7T7mh92ZYIqW5F5x5qaTpneG2EP X-Proofpoint-GUID: VKGRN7T7mh92ZYIqW5F5x5qaTpneG2EP X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-15_02:2021-04-15,2021-04-15 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104150045 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:54:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-04-21 10:53:00, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:28:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > Another approach may be to identify filesystem types that do not > > > need memcg awareness and feed that into alloc_super() to set/clear > > > the SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE flag. This could be based on fstype - most > > > virtual filesystems that expose system information do not really > > > need full memcg awareness because they are generally only visible to > > > a single memcg instance... > > > > Would something like below be appropriate? > > No. First of all you are defining yet another way to say > SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE which is messy. Ok. > And secondly why would shmem, proc > and ramfs be any special and they would be ok to opt out? There is no > single word about that reasoning in your changelog. Right, I am only checking if the suggestion given by David (see above) is indeed this. There are a few other things to take care of which I shall if the overall direction of the patch turns out to be acceptable. Regards, Bharata.