Re: [PATCH v8 03/17] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker

[Shakeel Butt]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:13 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03.07.2018 20:58, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 06:46:57PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> shrinker_idr now contains only memcg-aware shrinkers, so all bits from memcg map
> >> may be potentially populated. In case of memcg-aware shrinkers and !memcg-aware
> >> shrinkers share the same numbers like you suggest, this will lead to increasing
> >> size of memcg maps, which is bad for memory consumption. So, memcg-aware shrinkers
> >> should to have its own IDR and its own numbers. The tricks like allocation big
> >> IDs for !memcg-aware shrinkers seem bad for me, since they make the code more
> >> complicated.
> >
> > Do we really have so very many !memcg-aware shrinkers?
> >
> > $ git grep -w register_shrinker |wc
> >      32     119    2221
> > $ git grep -w register_shrinker_prepared |wc
> >       4      13     268
> > (that's an overstatement; one of those is the declaration, one the definition,
> > and one an internal call, so we actually only have one caller of _prepared).
> >
> > So it looks to me like your average system has one shrinker per
> > filesystem, one per graphics card, one per raid5 device, and a few
> > miscellaneous.  I'd be shocked if anybody had more than 100 shrinkers
> > registered on their laptop.
> >
> > I think we should err on the side of simiplicity and just have one IDR for
> > every shrinker instead of playing games to solve a theoretical problem.
>
> It just a standard situation for the systems with many containers. Every mount
> introduce a new shrinker to the system, so it's easy to see a system with
> 100 or ever 1000 shrinkers. AFAIR, Shakeel said he also has the similar
> configurations.
>

I can say on our production systems, a couple thousand shrinkers is normal.

Shakeel