Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] Display current tcp memory allocation in kmem cgroup

Kirill A. Shutemov
2011-10-06T08:46:12Z

On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 01:10:06PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 04:36 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 10/03/2011 04:25 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:19:18PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>>> On 10/03/2011 04:14 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:18:42PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>>>>> This patch introduces kmem.tcp_current_memory file, living in the
> >>>>>> kmem_cgroup filesystem. It is a simple read-only file that displays the
> >>>>>> amount of kernel memory currently consumed by the cgroup.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
> >>>>>> CC: David S. Miller<davem@davemloft.net>
> >>>>>> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >>>>>> CC: Eric W. Biederman<ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 1 +
> >>>>>> mm/memcontrol.c | 11 +++++++++++
> >>>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> >>>>>> index 1ffde3e..f5a539d 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> >>>>>> @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ Brief summary of control files.
> >>>>>> memory.independent_kmem_limit # select whether or not kernel memory limits are
> >>>>>> independent of user limits
> >>>>>> memory.kmem.tcp.max_memory # set/show hard limit for tcp buf memory
> >>>>>> + memory.kmem.tcp.current_memory # show current tcp buf memory allocation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both are in pages, right?
> >>>>> Shouldn't it be scaled to bytes and named uniform with other memcg file?
> >>>>> memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes/usage_in_bytes.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You are absolutely correct.
> >>>> Since the internal tcp comparison works, I just ended up never noticing
> >>>> this.
> >>>
> >>> Should we have failcnt and max_usage_in_bytes for tcp as well?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, we get a fail count from the tracer anyway, so I don't really see
> >> a need for that. I see value in having it for the slab allocation
> >> itself, but since this only controls the memory pressure framework, I
> >> think we can live without it.
> >>
> >> That said, this is not a strong opinion. I can add it if you'd prefer.
> >
> > It's good for userspace to have the same set of files for all domains:
> > - memory;
> > - memory.memsw;
> > - memory.kmem;
> > - memory.kmem.tcp;
> > - etc.
> > Userspace can reuse code for handling them in this case.
> >
> Ok. Back on this.
>
> Not all domains have all files anyway.

$ ls -l *.{failcnt,limit_in_bytes,max_usage_in_bytes,usage_in_bytes}
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.failcnt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.limit_in_bytes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.max_usage_in_bytes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.memsw.failcnt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.memsw.max_usage_in_bytes
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.memsw.usage_in_bytes
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 6 11:34 memory.usage_in_bytes

Hm?..

> max_usage seems to be a property of the main memcg, not of its domains.
> failcnt is present on memsw, and on that only. The problem here, is that
> this can fail ( and usually will ) in codepaths outside the memory
> controller. (see net/core/sock.c:__sk_mem_schedule)

+1 reason to use res_counter. It provides all data needed for this files.

> Also, max_usage makes sense for kernel memory as a whole, but I don't
> think it makes sense here as we're only controlling a specific pressure
> condition.

max_usage is reasonable for everything you can limit. It allows you to
track if limit is set appropriate.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov