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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 4CAC2C0650E for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B55C2189E for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726918AbfGCPOt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:14:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46504 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725847AbfGCPOs (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:14:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A41D981F12; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from llong.remote.csb (dhcp-17-160.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.160]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7F3608C1; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: Extend slab/shrink to shrink all the memcg caches To: Michal Hocko Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro , Jonathan Corbet , Luis Chamberlain , Kees Cook , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Andrea Arcangeli References: <20190702183730.14461-1-longman@redhat.com> <20190703065628.GK978@dhcp22.suse.cz> <9ade5859-b937-c1ac-9881-2289d734441d@redhat.com> <20190703143701.GR978@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Waiman Long Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:14:28 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190703143701.GR978@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/3/19 10:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 03-07-19 09:12:13, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 7/3/19 2:56 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Tue 02-07-19 14:37:30, Waiman Long wrote: >>>> Currently, a value of '1" is written to /sys/kernel/slab//shrink >>>> file to shrink the slab by flushing all the per-cpu slabs and free >>>> slabs in partial lists. This applies only to the root caches, though. >>>> >>>> Extends this capability by shrinking all the child memcg caches and >>>> the root cache when a value of '2' is written to the shrink sysfs file. >>> Why do we need a new value for this functionality? I would tend to think >>> that skipping memcg caches is a bug/incomplete implementation. Or is it >>> a deliberate decision to cover root caches only? >> It is just that I don't want to change the existing behavior of the >> current code. It will definitely take longer to shrink both the root >> cache and the memcg caches. > Does that matter? To whom and why? I do not expect this interface to be > used heavily. The only concern that I can see is the fact that I need to take the slab_mutex when iterating the memcg list to prevent concurrent modification. That may have some impact on other applications running in the system. However, I can put a precaution statement on the user-doc to discuss the potential performance impact. >> If we all agree that the only sensible >> operation is to shrink root cache and the memcg caches together. I am >> fine just adding memcg shrink without changing the sysfs interface >> definition and be done with it. > The existing documentation is really modest on the actual semantic: > Description: > The shrink file is written when memory should be reclaimed from > a cache. Empty partial slabs are freed and the partial list is > sorted so the slabs with the fewest available objects are used > first. > > which to me sounds like all slabs are free and nobody should be really > thinking of memcgs. This is simply drop_caches kinda thing. We surely do > not want to drop caches only for the root memcg for /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches > right? > I am planning to reword the document to make the effect of using this sysfs file more explicit. Cheers, Longman