RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 736433 - Bad scalability with memory cgroups.
Summary: Bad scalability with memory cgroups.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 717803
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel
Version: 6.1
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Kernel Manager
QA Contact: Red Hat Kernel QE team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-09-07 16:54 UTC by Xavier Bru
Modified: 2011-09-09 11:35 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-09 11:35:35 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Xavier Bru 2011-09-07 16:54:30 UTC 
Description of problem:

Bad scalability with memory cgroups.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
 2.6.32-131.12.1

How reproducible:

run a program that allocates memory on a 32 cpu system

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create a user Memory Cgroup
2. run 32 occurences of program that allocates memory
3. compare time with same program executed outside Memory cgroup or with  cgroup_disable=memory
  
Actual results:

. in  cgroup memory:  
Time for Allocating Buffers : 100.222279 second(s)
 75.70%  _spin_lock res_counter_uncharge

Expected results:
. outside cgroup memory:
Time for Allocating Buffers : 3.721997 second(s) 


Additional info:
perf profiling shows contention on cgroup spinlock. This has been reworked in recent kernels to coalesce the accounting on cgroup. 2.6.37 kernel does not show the problem of scalability.

    75.70%  malloc_seq  [kernel.kallsyms]                                                                     [k] _s
            |
            --- _spin_lock
               |          
               |--52.11%-- res_counter_uncharge
               |          __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common
               |          mem_cgroup_uncharge_page
               |          page_remove_rmap
               |          unmap_vmas
               |          exit_mmap
               |          mmput
               |          |          
               |          |--100.00%-- exit_mm
               |          |          do_exit
               |          |          do_group_exit
               |          |          sys_exit_group
               |          |          system_call_fastpath
               |           --0.00%-- [...]
               |          
               |--47.86%-- res_counter_charge
Comment 2 Gary Smith 2011-09-09 09:00:06 UTC 
@xavier


Is this the same issue as reported from Bull via myself at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717803  ?
Comment 3 Xavier Bru 2011-09-09 09:50:27 UTC 
Yes,....Sorry I missed it was already opened as a Bugzilla.
Comment 4 Gary Smith 2011-09-09 11:35:35 UTC 
No problem. I'll closed this BZ as a DUPLICATE of the other.

Can I ask you to please add the above information (and any additional data) as a new comment on the other BZ? (so that it is seen to come from an @bull.net address rather than an internal @redhat.com address).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 717803 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.