On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 01:00:59PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
I've another question regarding this socket_work: its reclaim target
always equals CHARGE_BATCH. Can't it result in a workload exceeding
memory.high in case there are a lot of allocations coming from different
cpus? In this case the work might not manage to complete before another
allocation happens. May be, we should accumulate the number of pages to
be reclaimed by the work, as we do in try_charge?
Actually, try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() rounds it up to 2MB anyway. I
would hate to add locking or more atomics to accumulate a reclaim goal
for the worker on spec, so let's wait to see if this is a real issue.
quoted
quoted
BTW why do we need this work at all? Why is reclaim_high called from
task_work not enough?
The problem lies in the memcg association: the random task that gets
interrupted by an arriving packet might not be in the same memcg as
the one owning receiving socket. And multiple interrupts could happen
while we're in the kernel already charging pages. We'd basically have
to maintain a list of memcgs that need to run reclaim_high associated
with current.
Right, I think this is worth placing in a comment to memcg->socket_work.
Okay, will do.
I wonder if we could use it *instead* of task_work for handling every
allocation, not only socket-related. Would it make any sense? May be, it
could reduce the latency experienced by tasks in memory cgroups.
No, we *want* charging tasks to do reclaim work once memory.high is
breached, in order to match their speed to memory availability. That
needs to remain synchroneous.
What we could try is make memcg->socket_work purely about the receive
side when we're inside the softirq, and arm the per-task work when in
process context on the sending side. I'll look into that.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>