Hello, Glauber. 2012/11/2 Glauber Costa <glom...@parallels.com>: > On 11/02/2012 04:04 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:07:16 +0400 >> Glauber Costa <glom...@parallels.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This work introduces the kernel memory controller for memcg. Unlike previous >>> submissions, this includes the whole controller, comprised of slab and stack >>> memory. >> >> I'm in the middle of (re)reading all this. Meanwhile I'll push it all >> out to http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/ for the crazier testers. >> >> One thing: >> >>> Numbers can be found at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/13/239 >> >> You claim in the above that the fork worload is 'slab intensive". Or >> at least, you seem to - it's a bit fuzzy. >> >> But how slab intensive is it, really? >> >> What is extremely slab intensive is networking. The networking guys >> are very sensitive to slab performance. If this hasn't already been >> done, could you please determine what impact this has upon networking? >> I expect Eric Dumazet, Dave Miller and Tom Herbert could suggest >> testing approaches. >> > > I can test it, but unfortunately I am unlikely to get to prepare a good > environment before Barcelona. > > I know, however, that Greg Thelen was testing netperf in his setup. > Greg, do you have any publishable numbers you could share?
Below is my humble opinion. I am worrying about data cache footprint which is possibly caused by this patchset, especially slab implementation. If there are several memcg cgroups, each cgroup has it's own kmem_caches. When each group do slab-intensive job hard, data cache may be overflowed easily, and cache miss rate will be high, therefore this would decrease system performance highly. Is there any result about this? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
