Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/17] mm: Assign id to every memcg-aware shrinker
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, pombredanne@nexb.com, stummala@codeaurora.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, guro@fb.com,
        mka@chromium.org, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp,
        chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, longman@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org,
        ying.huang@intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, jbacik@fb.com,
        linux@roeck-us.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, lirongqing@baidu.com, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
References: <153063036670.1818.16010062622751502.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <153063054586.1818.6041047871606697364.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180703152723.GB21590@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <2d845a0d-d147-7250-747e-27e493b6a627@virtuozzo.com>
 <20180703175808.GC4834@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <94c282fd-1b5a-e959-b344-01a51fd5fc2e@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 22:12:47 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180703175808.GC4834@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: virtuozzo.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2018 19:12:56.3813 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fd08dd03-0894-415d-4584-08d5e118fd66
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 0bc7f26d-0264-416e-a6fc-8352af79c58f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR0801MB1344
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.

So, this problem is not theoretical, it's just a standard situation
for active consumer or Docker/etc.

>>> This will actually reduce the size of each shrinker and be more
>>> cache-efficient when calling the shrinkers.  I think we can also get
>>> rid of the shrinker_rwsem eventually, but let's leave it for now.
>>
>> This patchset does not make the cache-efficient bad, since without the patchset the situation
>> is so bad, that it's just impossible to talk about the cache efficiently,
>> so let's leave lockless iteration/etc for the future works.
> 
> The situation is that bad /for your use case/.  Not so much for others.
> You're introducing additional complexity here, and it'd be nice if we
> can remove some of the complexity that's already there.

You started from cache-efficienty, and now you moved to existing complexity.
I did some cleanups in this patchset, also there is Vladimir's patch, which
simplifies shrinker logic. Also there is already 17 patches.
Which already existing complexity you want to remove? I don't think there is
existing complexity directly connected to this patchset.