[Devel] Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

[Glauber Costa]

On 04/20/2012 06:48 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my current attempt at getting the kmem controller
> into a mergeable state. IMHO, all the important bits are there, and it should't
> change *that* much from now on. I am, however, expecting at least a couple more
> interactions before we sort all the edges out.
>
> This series works for both the slub and the slab. One of my main goals was to
> make sure that the interfaces we are creating actually makes sense for both
> allocators.
>
> I did some adaptations to the slab-specific patches, but the bulk of it
> comes from Suleiman's patches. I did the best to use his patches
> as-is where possible so to keep authorship information. When not possible,
> I tried to be fair and quote it in the commit message.
>
> In this series, all existing caches are created per-memcg after its first hit.
> The main reason is, during discussions in the memory summit we came into
> agreement that the fragmentation problems that could arise from creating all
> of them are mitigated by the typically small quantity of caches in the system
> (order of a few megabytes total for sparsely used caches).
> The lazy creation from Suleiman is kept, although a bit modified. For instance,
> I now use a locked scheme instead of cmpxcgh to make sure cache creation won't
> fail due to duplicates, which simplifies things by quite a bit.
>
> The slub is a bit more complex than what I came up with in my slub-only
> series. The reason is we did not need to use the cache-selection logic
> in the allocator itself - it was done by the cache users. But since now
> we are lazy creating all caches, this is simply no longer doable.
>
> I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
> of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
> series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
> user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
> to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
> is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
> that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
> shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
> out of the experimental state.
>
> I am also not including documentation, but it should only be a matter
> of merging what we already wrote in earlier series plus some additions.
>
> Glauber Costa (19):
>    slub: don't create a copy of the name string in kmem_cache_create
>    slub: always get the cache from its page in kfree
>    slab: rename gfpflags to allocflags
>    slab: use obj_size field of struct kmem_cache when not debugging
>    change defines to an enum
>    don't force return value checking in res_counter_charge_nofail
>    kmem slab accounting basic infrastructure
>    slab/slub: struct memcg_params
>    slub: consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create_cache
>    slab: pass memcg parameter to kmem_cache_create
>    slub: create duplicate cache
>    slub: provide kmalloc_no_account
>    slab: create duplicate cache
>    slab: provide kmalloc_no_account
>    kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure
>    slub: charge allocation to a memcg
>    slab: per-memcg accounting of slab caches
>    memcg: disable kmem code when not in use.
>    slub: create slabinfo file for memcg
>
> Suleiman Souhlal (4):
>    memcg: Make it possible to use the stock for more than one page.
>    memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.
>    memcg: Track all the memcg children of a kmem_cache.
>    memcg: Per-memcg memory.kmem.slabinfo file.
>
I am sorry.

My mail server seems to be going crazy in the middle of the submission, 
and the whole patchset is not going through (and a part of it got 
duplicated)

I'll post the whole series later, when I figure out what's wrong.