Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:13:42 +0530
From:   Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers
Message-ID: <20210407134342.GA1386511@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: bharata@linux.ibm.com
References: <20210405054848.GA1077931@in.ibm.com>
 <YG2diKMPNSK2cMyG@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YG2diKMPNSK2cMyG@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-04-21 11:18:48, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > When running 10000 (more-or-less-empty-)containers on a bare-metal Power9
> > server(160 CPUs, 2 NUMA nodes, 256G memory), it is seen that memory
> > consumption increases quite a lot (around 172G) when the containers are
> > running. Most of it comes from slab (149G) and within slab, the majority of
> > it comes from kmalloc-32 cache (102G)
> 
> Is this 10k cgroups a testing enviroment or does anybody really use that
> in production? I would be really curious to hear how that behaves when
> those containers are not idle. E.g. global memory reclaim iterating over
> 10k memcgs will likely be very visible. I do remember playing with
> similar setups few years back and the overhead was very high.

This 10k containers is only a test scenario that we are looking at.

Regards,
Bharata.