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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 CFB61C3A5A6 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F0521D56 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="ieeib4Ap" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390482AbfISNjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:39:31 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-f194.google.com ([209.85.219.194]:39512 "EHLO mail-yb1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389222AbfISNjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:39:31 -0400 Received: by mail-yb1-f194.google.com with SMTP id o80so1334139ybc.6 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:39:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gh9epQbPDXS45t0vdSz30/htyHlI6NEZom/dNuM2sGs=; b=ieeib4ApNmoMaWTclSUxdRd2KtnX6idLkHzrhFUwAyBClrQ4kku9aL9aTofkCcrasC ZVdU1AM4T84Jn4WW5X+mUslTzGyn2RP3kRs453/UtfKoxf7aAByCAWxuuthh01LEZ6XZ pa2A5qr/JT3myBWj7qNoSPvwZce6BFFBGJUfVmzcG83Ee9lzDFFcaYitb65MhoXKye0u jaDkWCeVgEXo2LZ293ZeUnm5tbaDTCqcwbCIsnX7gWIC6hBFMQZsGviDyV18ukHdh5dN 1EvTQ5Aa67fcKxfzhixaPaBbmhZqa+B9X7+YgvKmNFY5gywNqog/UzNZug8NUfp+5eGc C1Kg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gh9epQbPDXS45t0vdSz30/htyHlI6NEZom/dNuM2sGs=; b=X8Lweb1o2laQeLZr1UPX9iCGddOTpfahheO067BoNrxUNnlQOFsp5RHwX6+sBHZb3B vvBciiFRCl8oQMTRpyRTipUfLlngloS/+BnrkC6d1VGKdTFVbSKfwr1vPT75VRqBGvwQ 4wEyiCpyDOdzmUv4y5GUG1t31a+BPyWZlneLm9nUAZyBolfuKua0vBfv7TBvvoOiXfyd Y2vppkBAhizWMs+chOxIoQwHhGuQVHAen7Q7tc7dpdyDiEVJA4KjE8BNqF06PyCc+QSt h84AFJEzTkG/mbeQKQW03JASBiBIvtCRhcRq9aXV8h6m1KOWYa9Eu1ruga2c07iRQ3eG CrJg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVaFWabIaeT6tCXZ3sy0kuS4UdW66U/Y7TlHLqA2sjYjrjUOylq ocdbNQgPSTt7mtgLpzxM5KcCKPCbVk6KdRz2Z/knqw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyTTjYSC4/xvE4YiMCj3MA7ZD4bi7SRQ4CDsCuRNHidPBrDbCC1madTD9IMdduZjh/1UXDKHeEVxOBAWhjVCFA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ba8d:: with SMTP id s13mr6638491ybg.332.1568900370326; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190905214553.1643060-1-guro@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <20190905214553.1643060-1-guro@fb.com> From: Suleiman Souhlal Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:39:18 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/14] The new slab memory controller To: Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Linux Kernel , kernel-team@fb.com, Shakeel Butt , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:57 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > The patchset has been tested on a number of different workloads in our > production. In all cases, it saved hefty amounts of memory: > 1) web frontend, 650-700 Mb, ~42% of slab memory > 2) database cache, 750-800 Mb, ~35% of slab memory > 3) dns server, 700 Mb, ~36% of slab memory Do these workloads cycle through a lot of different memcgs? For workloads that don't, wouldn't this approach potentially use more memory? For example, a workload where everything is in one or two memcgs, and those memcgs last forever. -- Suleiman