On 5/13/20 2:57 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > Btw, I'm trying to build up a prototype with an embedded memcg pointer, > but it seems to be way more tricky than I thought. It requires changes to > shrinkers (as they rely on getting the memcg pointer by an arbitrary > kernel address, not necessarily aligned to the head of slab allocation), > figuring out cache merging, adding SLAB support, natural alignment of > kmallocs etc.
Is the natural alignment of kmallocs a problem right now? As kmalloc() allocations are AFAIK not kmemcg-accounted? Or does your implementation add memcg awareness to everything, even if non-__GFP_ACCOUNT allocations just get a root memcg pointer? > Figuring out all these details will likely take several weeks, so the whole > thing will be delayed for one-two major releases (in the best case). Given > that > the current implementation saves ~40% of slab memory, I think there is some > value > in delivering it as it is. So I wonder if the idea of embedding the pointer > should be considered a blocker, or it can be implemented of top of the > proposed > code (given it's not a user-facing api or something like this)? > > Thanks! >