From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx116.postini.com [74.125.245.116]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 665C46B002B for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <507DAF56.9010403@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:02:46 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/14] Add documentation about the kmem controller References: <1350382611-20579-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350382611-20579-15-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <0000013a6ad26c73-d043cf97-c44a-45c1-9cae-0a962e93a005-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <0000013a6ad26c73-d043cf97-c44a-45c1-9cae-0a962e93a005-000000@email.amazonses.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal On 10/16/2012 10:25 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> >> + memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes # set/show hard limit for kernel memory >> + memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes # show current kernel memory allocation >> + memory.kmem.failcnt # show the number of kernel memory usage hits limits >> + memory.kmem.max_usage_in_bytes # show max kernel memory usage recorded > > Does it actually make sense to limit kernel memory? Yes. > The user generally has > no idea how much kernel memory a process is using and kernel changes can > change the memory footprint. Given the fuzzy accounting in the kernel a > large cache refill (if someone configures the slab batch count to be > really big f.e.) can account a lot of memory to the wrong cgroup. The > allocation could fail. > It heavily depends on the type of the user. The user may not know how much kernel memory precisely will be used, but he/she usually knows quite well that it shouldn't be all cgroups together shouldn't use more than available in the system. IOW: It is usually safe to overcommit user memory, but not kernel memory. This is absolutely crucial in any high-density container host, and we've been doing this in OpenVZ for ages (in an uglier form than this) > Limiting the total memory use of a process (U+K) would make more sense I > guess. Only U is probably sufficient? In what way would a limitation on > kernel memory in use be good? > The kmem counter is also fed into the u counter. If the limit value of "u" is equal or greater than "k", this is actually what you are doing. For a lot of application yes, only U is sufficient. This is the default, btw, since "k" is only even accounted if you set the limit. All those use cases are detailed a bit below in this file. A limitation of kernel memory use would be good, for example, to prevent abuse from non-trusted containers in a high density, shared, container environment. -- 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