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: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:37:01 +0900 Message-ID: <4FDF20ED.4090401@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340015298-14133-24-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1340015298-14133-24-git-send-email-glommer-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 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); Thanks, -Kame