[Devel] Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v6)
Balbir Singh
balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Mar 9 17:36:57 PST 2010
* Andrea Righi <arighi at develer.com> [2010-03-10 00:00:31]:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
>
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they
> will not be able to consume more than their designated share of dirty pages and
> will be forced to perform write-out if they cross that limit.
>
> The overall design is the following:
>
> - account dirty pages per cgroup
> - limit the number of dirty pages via memory.dirty_ratio / memory.dirty_bytes
> and memory.dirty_background_ratio / memory.dirty_background_bytes in
> cgroupfs
> - start to write-out (background or actively) when the cgroup limits are
> exceeded
>
> This feature is supposed to be strictly connected to any underlying IO
> controller implementation, so we can stop increasing dirty pages in VM layer
> and enforce a write-out before any cgroup will consume the global amount of
> dirty pages defined by the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio|dirty_bytes and
> /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio|dirty_background_bytes limits.
>
> Changelog (v5 -> v6)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * always disable/enable IRQs at lock/unlock_page_cgroup(): this allows to drop
> the previous complicated locking scheme in favor of a simpler locking, even
> if this obviously adds some overhead (see results below)
> * drop FUSE and NILFS2 dirty pages accounting for now (this depends on
> charging bounce pages per cgroup)
>
> Results
> ~~~~~~~
> I ran some tests using a kernel build (2.6.33 x86_64_defconfig) on a
> Intel Core 2 @ 1.2GHz as testcase using different kernels:
> - mmotm "vanilla"
> - mmotm with cgroup-dirty-memory using the previous "complex" locking scheme
> (my previous patchset + the fixes reported by Kame-san and Daisuke-san)
> - mmotm with cgroup-dirty-memory using the simple locking scheme
> (lock_page_cgroup() with IRQs disabled)
>
> Following the results:
> <before>
> - mmotm "vanilla", root cgroup: 11m51.983s
> - mmotm "vanilla", child cgroup: 11m56.596s
>
> <after>
> - mmotm, "complex" locking scheme, root cgroup: 11m53.037s
> - mmotm, "complex" locking scheme, child cgroup: 11m57.896s
>
> - mmotm, lock_page_cgroup+irq_disabled, root cgroup: 12m5.499s
> - mmotm, lock_page_cgroup+irq_disabled, child cgroup: 12m9.920s
>
This is a cause for big concern, any chance you could test this on a
large system. I am concerned about root overhead the most.
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list