Re: [rfc patch 0/6] mm: memcg naturalization

[Johannes Weiner]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:00:34PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-05-12 16:53:52]:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Here is a patch series that is a result of the memcg discussions on
> > LSF (memcg-aware global reclaim, global lru removal, struct
> > page_cgroup reduction, soft limit implementation) and the recent
> > feature discussions on linux-mm.
> > 
> > The long-term idea is to have memcgs no longer bolted to the side of
> > the mm code, but integrate it as much as possible such that there is a
> > native understanding of containers, and that the traditional !memcg
> > setup is just a singular group.  This series is an approach in that
> > direction.
> > 
> > It is a rather early snapshot, WIP, barely tested etc., but I wanted
> > to get your opinions before further pursuing it.  It is also part of
> > my counter-argument to the proposals of adding memcg-reclaim-related
> > user interfaces at this point in time, so I wanted to push this out
> > the door before things are merged into .40.
> > 
> > The patches are quite big, I am still looking for things to factor and
> > split out, sorry for this.  Documentation is on its way as well ;)
> > 
> > #1 and #2 are boring preparational work.  #3 makes traditional reclaim
> > in vmscan.c memcg-aware, which is a prerequisite for both removal of
> > the global lru in #5 and the way I reimplemented soft limit reclaim in
> > #6.
> 
> A large part of the acceptance would be based on what the test results
> for common mm benchmarks show.

I will try to ensure the following things:

1. will not degrade performance on !CONFIG_MEMCG kernels

2. will not degrade performance on CONFIG_MEMCG kernels without
configured memcgs.  This might be the most important one as most
desktop/server distributions enable the memory controller per default

3. will not degrade overall performance of workloads running
concurrently in separate memory control groups.  I expect some shifts,
however, that even out performance differences.

Please let me know what you consider common mm benchmarks.

Thanks!

	Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/