Re: High kmalloc-32 slab cache consumption with 10k containers

[Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>]

On 07.04.2021 14:47, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:07:27PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> Here is how the calculation turns out to be in my setup:
>>>
>>> Number of possible NUMA nodes = 2
>>> Number of mounts per container = 7 (Check below to see which are these)
>>> Number of list creation requests per mount = 2
>>> Number of containers = 10000
>>> memcg_nr_cache_ids for 10k containers = 12286
>>
>> Luckily, we have "+1" in memcg_nr_cache_ids formula: size = 2 * (id + 1).
>> In case of we only multiplied it, you would have to had memcg_nr_cache_ids=20000.
> 
> Not really, it would grow like this for size = 2 * id
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 8
> id 8 size 16
> id 16 size 32
> id 32 size 64
> id 64 size 128
> id 128 size 256
> id 256 size 512
> id 512 size 1024
> id 1024 size 2048
> id 2048 size 4096
> id 4096 size 8192
> id 8192 size 16384
> 
> Currently (size = 2 * (id + 1)), it grows like this:
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 10
> id 10 size 22
> id 22 size 46
> id 46 size 94
> id 94 size 190
> id 190 size 382
> id 382 size 766
> id 766 size 1534
> id 1534 size 3070
> id 3070 size 6142
> id 6142 size 12286

Oh, thanks, I forgot what power of two is :)
 
>>
>> Maybe, we need change that formula to increase memcg_nr_cache_ids more accurate
>> for further growths of containers number. Say,
>>
>> size = id < 2000 ? 2 * (id + 1) : id + 2000
> 
> For the above, it would only be marginally better like this:
> 
> id 0 size 4
> id 4 size 10
> id 10 size 22
> id 22 size 46
> id 46 size 94
> id 94 size 190
> id 190 size 382
> id 382 size 766
> id 766 size 1534
> id 1534 size 3070
> id 3070 size 5070
> id 5070 size 7070
> id 7070 size 9070
> id 9070 size 11070
> 
> All the above numbers are for 10k memcgs.

I mean the number of containers bigger then your 10000.