On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Well slub returns an error code if it fails
>
> ... to sort slabs by the nubmer of objects in use, which is not even
> implied by the function declaration. Why can *shrinking*, which is what
> kmem_cache_shrink must do at first place, ever fail?
Because there is a memory allocation failure. Or there may be other
processes going on that prevent shrinking. F.e. We may want to merge a
patchset that does defragmentation of slabs at some point.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:16:03AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> > > Well slub returns an error code if it fails
> >
> > ... to sort slabs by the nubmer of objects in use, which is not even
> > implied by the function declaration. Why can *shrinking*, which is what
> > kmem_cache_shrink must do at first place, ever fail?
>
> Because there is a memory allocation failure. Or there may be other
> processes going on that prevent shrinking. F.e. We may want to merge a
> patchset that does defragmentation of slabs at some point.
Fair enough.
Still, I really want to evict all empty slabs from cache on memcg
offline for sure. Handling failures there means introducing a worker
that will retry shrinking, but that seems to me as an unnecessary
complication, because there's nothing that can prevent us from shrinking
empty slabs from the cache, even if we merge slab defragmentation, isn't
it?
May be, it's worth introducing a special function, say kmem_cache_zap(),
that will only evict empty slabs from the cache, plus disable empty
slabs caching? This function would be called only from memcg offline for
dead memcg caches.
Thanks.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Still, I really want to evict all empty slabs from cache on memcg
> offline for sure. Handling failures there means introducing a worker
> that will retry shrinking, but that seems to me as an unnecessary
> complication, because there's nothing that can prevent us from shrinking
> empty slabs from the cache, even if we merge slab defragmentation, isn't
> it?
>
> May be, it's worth introducing a special function, say kmem_cache_zap(),
> that will only evict empty slabs from the cache, plus disable empty
> slabs caching? This function would be called only from memcg offline for
> dead memcg caches.
I am fine with the lower impact version that you came up with later.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:48:51AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> > Still, I really want to evict all empty slabs from cache on memcg
> > offline for sure. Handling failures there means introducing a worker
> > that will retry shrinking, but that seems to me as an unnecessary
> > complication, because there's nothing that can prevent us from shrinking
> > empty slabs from the cache, even if we merge slab defragmentation, isn't
> > it?
> >
> > May be, it's worth introducing a special function, say kmem_cache_zap(),
> > that will only evict empty slabs from the cache, plus disable empty
> > slabs caching? This function would be called only from memcg offline for
> > dead memcg caches.
>
> I am fine with the lower impact version that you came up with later.
Oh, I missed a couple of your previous e-mails, because our mail server
marked them (along with a hundred or so another messages :-) ) as junk
for some reason. Going to turn off the filter completely.
Sorry for being inconsistent and thank you.