From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/25] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:16:20 +0900 Message-ID: <4FDFC4D4.1030303@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340015298-14133-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FDF20ED.4090401@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FDF227B.3080601@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FDF227B.3080601-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Pekka Enberg , Cristoph Lameter , David Rientjes , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Suleiman Souhlal , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner (2012/06/18 21:43), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/18/2012 04:37 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/06/18 19:28), Glauber Costa wrote: >>> The current memcg slab cache management fails to present satisfatory hierarchical >>> behavior in the following scenario: >>> >>> -> /cgroups/memory/A/B/C >>> >>> * kmem limit set at A >>> * A and B empty taskwise >>> * bash in C does find / >>> >>> Because kmem_accounted is a boolean that was not set for C, no accounting >>> would be done. This is, however, not what we expect. >>> >> >> Hmm....do we need this new routines even while we have mem_cgroup_iter() ? >> >> Doesn't this work ? >> >> struct mem_cgroup { >> ..... >> bool kmem_accounted_this; >> atomic_t kmem_accounted; >> .... >> } >> >> at set limit >> >> ....set_limit(memcg) { >> >> if (newly accounted) { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_inc(&iter->kmem_accounted) >> } >> } else { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_dec(&iter->kmem_accounted); >> } >> } >> >> >> hm ? Then, you can see kmem is accounted or not by atomic_read(&memcg->kmem_accounted); >> > > Accounted by itself / parent is still useful, and I see no reason to use > an atomic + bool if we can use a pair of bits. > > As for the routine, I guess mem_cgroup_iter will work... It does a lot > more than I need, but for the sake of using what's already in there, I > can switch to it with no problems. > Hmm. please start from reusing existing routines. If it's not enough, some enhancement for generic cgroup will be welcomed rather than completely new one only for memcg. Thanks, -Kame From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx185.postini.com [74.125.245.185]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 555F86B0062 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67A43EE0C7 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:18:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC78445DEB4 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:18:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B272D45DEA6 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:18:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677C61DB8041 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:18:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.133]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7D61DB803F for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:18:29 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4FDFC4D4.1030303@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:16:20 +0900 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/25] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340015298-14133-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FDF20ED.4090401@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FDF227B.3080601@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <4FDF227B.3080601@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , Cristoph Lameter , David Rientjes , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Suleiman Souhlal , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner (2012/06/18 21:43), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/18/2012 04:37 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/06/18 19:28), Glauber Costa wrote: >>> The current memcg slab cache management fails to present satisfatory hierarchical >>> behavior in the following scenario: >>> >>> -> /cgroups/memory/A/B/C >>> >>> * kmem limit set at A >>> * A and B empty taskwise >>> * bash in C does find / >>> >>> Because kmem_accounted is a boolean that was not set for C, no accounting >>> would be done. This is, however, not what we expect. >>> >> >> Hmm....do we need this new routines even while we have mem_cgroup_iter() ? >> >> Doesn't this work ? >> >> struct mem_cgroup { >> ..... >> bool kmem_accounted_this; >> atomic_t kmem_accounted; >> .... >> } >> >> at set limit >> >> ....set_limit(memcg) { >> >> if (newly accounted) { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_inc(&iter->kmem_accounted) >> } >> } else { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_dec(&iter->kmem_accounted); >> } >> } >> >> >> hm ? Then, you can see kmem is accounted or not by atomic_read(&memcg->kmem_accounted); >> > > Accounted by itself / parent is still useful, and I see no reason to use > an atomic + bool if we can use a pair of bits. > > As for the routine, I guess mem_cgroup_iter will work... It does a lot > more than I need, but for the sake of using what's already in there, I > can switch to it with no problems. > Hmm. please start from reusing existing routines. If it's not enough, some enhancement for generic cgroup will be welcomed rather than completely new one only for memcg. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753591Ab2FSASc (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:18:32 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:59348 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753173Ab2FSASa (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:18:30 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4 Message-ID: <4FDFC4D4.1030303@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:16:20 +0900 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glauber Costa CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , Cristoph Lameter , David Rientjes , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Suleiman Souhlal , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/25] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340015298-14133-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FDF20ED.4090401@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FDF227B.3080601@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <4FDF227B.3080601@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2012/06/18 21:43), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/18/2012 04:37 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/06/18 19:28), Glauber Costa wrote: >>> The current memcg slab cache management fails to present satisfatory hierarchical >>> behavior in the following scenario: >>> >>> -> /cgroups/memory/A/B/C >>> >>> * kmem limit set at A >>> * A and B empty taskwise >>> * bash in C does find / >>> >>> Because kmem_accounted is a boolean that was not set for C, no accounting >>> would be done. This is, however, not what we expect. >>> >> >> Hmm....do we need this new routines even while we have mem_cgroup_iter() ? >> >> Doesn't this work ? >> >> struct mem_cgroup { >> ..... >> bool kmem_accounted_this; >> atomic_t kmem_accounted; >> .... >> } >> >> at set limit >> >> ....set_limit(memcg) { >> >> if (newly accounted) { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_inc(&iter->kmem_accounted) >> } >> } else { >> mem_cgroup_iter() { >> atomic_dec(&iter->kmem_accounted); >> } >> } >> >> >> hm ? Then, you can see kmem is accounted or not by atomic_read(&memcg->kmem_accounted); >> > > Accounted by itself / parent is still useful, and I see no reason to use > an atomic + bool if we can use a pair of bits. > > As for the routine, I guess mem_cgroup_iter will work... It does a lot > more than I need, but for the sake of using what's already in there, I > can switch to it with no problems. > Hmm. please start from reusing existing routines. If it's not enough, some enhancement for generic cgroup will be welcomed rather than completely new one only for memcg. Thanks, -Kame