From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:34542 "EHLO
        ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751386AbdJKU4w (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:56:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:56:49 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        "Wangkai (Kevin C)" <wangkai86@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] fs/dcache: Limit # of negative dentries
Message-ID: <20171011205649.GL15067@dastard>
References: <1505758834-1201-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20171010155439.d8f4bc552a81290fd5bec8cd@linux-foundation.org>
 <41d8db7e-4538-aaaf-6d65-574b5c0ffd7a@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41d8db7e-4538-aaaf-6d65-574b5c0ffd7a@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:47:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 06:54 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:20:28 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> >> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available even if
> >> memory controller is enabled to limit memory usage. This can impact
> >> performance of other applications running on the system.
> > It does seem that under these circumstances it is pretty silly of us to
> > reclaim useful things in order to instantiate zillions of -ve dentries.
> 
> I am talking about a misbehaving program due to bug or an intentional
> rogue program.
> 
> >
> > Dentries are subject to kmemcg handling.  Does this not help avoid
> > "impacting performance of other applications"?
> 
> AFAIK, the dentry kmem_cache isn't memcg aware.

The dentry cache is most definitely is memcg aware. It (and teh
inode cache) were the primary targets for the memcg slab reclaim
infrastructure.

#if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
# define SLAB_ACCOUNT           0x04000000UL    /* Account to memcg */
#else
# define SLAB_ACCOUNT           0x00000000UL
#endif

dcache_init():

        dentry_cache = KMEM_CACHE(dentry,
                SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT|SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_MEM_SPREAD|SLAB_ACCOUNT);


Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com