On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 10:29 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:

Hello, Christoph, Glauber.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25:36AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

quoted

quoted

We have never worked container like logic like that in the kernel due to
the complicated logic you would have to put in. The requirement that all
objects in a page come from the same container is not necessary. If you
drop this notion then things become very easy and the patches will become
simple.

I promise to look at that in more detail and get back to it. In the
meantime, I think it would be enlightening to hear from other
parties as well, specially the ones also directly interested in
using the technology.

I don't think I'm too interested in using the technology ;) and
haven't read the code (just glanced through the descriptions and
discussions), but, in general, I think the approach of duplicating
memory allocator per-memcg is a sane approach.  It isn't the most
efficient one with the possibility of wasting considerable amount of
caching area per memcg but it is something which can mostly stay out
of the way if done right and that's how I want cgroup implementations
to be.

Exactly: we at parallels initially disliked the cgroup multipled by slab
approach (Our beancounters do count objects) because we feared memory
wastage and density is very important to us (which tends to mean
efficient use of memory) however, when we ran through the calculations
in Prague, you can show that we have ~200 slabs and if each wastes half
a page, thats ~4MB memory lost per container.  Since most virtual
environments are of the order nowadays of 0.5GB, we feel it's an
annoying but acceptable price to pay.

James

The two goals for cgroup controllers that I think are important are
proper (no, not crazy perfect but good enough) isolation and an
implementation which doesn't impact !cg path in an intrusive manner -
if someone who doesn't care about cgroup but knows and wants to work
on the subsystem should be able to mostly ignore cgroup support.  If
that means overhead for cgroup users, so be it.

Without looking at the actual code, my rainbow-farting unicorn here
would be having a common slXb interface layer which handles
interfacing with memory allocator users and cgroup and let slXb
implement the same backend interface which doesn't care / know about
cgroup at all (other than using the correct allocation context, that
is).  Glauber, would something like that be possible?

Thanks.