From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: Access rules for current->memcg Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:17:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20150720111707.GE1211@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <55A7B2D0.1030506@siteground.com> <20150716145902.GA10758@dhcp22.suse.cz> <55A7C9B4.3010907@siteground.com> <20150716152239.GA22529@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150717071339.GA24787@dhcp22.suse.cz> <55A8ABC9.7090701@siteground.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55A8ABC9.7090701-/eCPMmvKun9pLGFMi4vTTA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nikolay Borisov Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Fri 17-07-15 10:16:25, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 07/17/2015 10:13 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 17-07-15 00:21:51, Nikolay Borisov wrote: [...] > >> In my particular use case I have to query the memcg's various counters to expose > >> them to the user in a different way than via the cgroup files > >> (memory.limit_in_bytes etc). > > > > Why is the regular interface not sufficient? > > In my particular case I'm interested in playing with the contents of > /proc/meminfo, so that processes running inside a cgroup only see the > the system as defined by the memcg restrictions I assume that this is an attempt to containerize /proc/meminfo. I am not sure this is a great idea. There are counters which do not have memcg specific counterpart or such a counterpart would be missleading (e.g. slab, swap statistics). Is this an out-of-tree project or you are trying to push your changes to the Linus tree somewhere? I haven't noticed such patches. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs