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

Kirill A. Shutemov
2011-10-03T12:36:26Z

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.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov