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:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 16:10:46 +0000
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] percpu: memcg memory accounting rework
Message-ID: <YLpQhuZwuf32avkf@google.com>
References: <20210603010931.1472512-1-guro@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210603010931.1472512-1-guro@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 06:09:28PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patchset reworks memcg-based accounting of the percpu memory:
> instead of using two types of chunks (memcg-aware and non-memcg-aware)
> it treats all chunks as memcg-aware. An extra memory used for objcg
> arrays will is compensated by a better chunks utilization, so the
> total memory footprint should be the same or smaller.
> 
> First two patches are preparational changes and cleanups on the memcg side.
> The third one is percpu accounting rework.
> 
> v2:
>   - make all chunks memcg-aware instead of on-demand objcg allocation, by Dennis
> 
> v1:
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/5/11/1343
> 
> 
> Roman Gushchin (3):
>   mm, memcg: mark cgroup_memory_nosocket, nokmem and noswap as
>     __ro_after_init
>   mm, memcg: introduce mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()
>   percpu: rework memcg accounting
> 
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h |   5 ++
>  mm/memcontrol.c            |  11 ++-
>  mm/percpu-internal.h       |  52 +--------------
>  mm/percpu-km.c             |   5 +-
>  mm/percpu-stats.c          |  46 +++++--------
>  mm/percpu-vm.c             |  11 ++-
>  mm/percpu.c                | 133 +++++++++++++++----------------------
>  7 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

I think I'm pretty happy with this approach. If there is any issue with
the delta of memcg on but kmem accounting off, we can tackle that
separately. I'll need another day or so to review the last patch a
little more carefully though.

Andrew do you mind if I route the first two in my tree too?

Thanks,
Dennis