From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932638Ab2DZAKc (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:10:32 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:32890 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932453Ab2DZAKb (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:10:31 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4 Message-ID: <4F989207.5080208@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:08:39 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glauber Costa CC: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Frederic Weisbecker , Greg Thelen , Suleiman Souhlal Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/23] kmem slab accounting basic infrastructure References: <1334959051-18203-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1334959051-18203-10-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4F975430.4090107@jp.fujitsu.com> <4F980C81.5060802@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <4F980C81.5060802@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2012/04/25 23:38), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/24/2012 10:32 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/04/21 6:57), Glauber Costa wrote: >> >>> This patch adds the basic infrastructure for the accounting of the slab >>> caches. To control that, the following files are created: >>> >>> * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes >>> * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes >>> * memory.kmem.failcnt >>> * memory.kmem.max_usage_in_bytes >>> >>> They have the same meaning of their user memory counterparts. They reflect >>> the state of the "kmem" res_counter. >>> >>> The code is not enabled until a limit is set. This can be tested by the flag >>> "kmem_accounted". This means that after the patch is applied, no behavioral >>> changes exists for whoever is still using memcg to control their memory usage. >>> >> >> Hmm, res_counter never goes naeative ? > > Why would it? > > This one has more or less the same logic as the sock buffers. > > If we are not accounted, the caches don't get created. If the caches > don't get created, we don't release them. (this is modulo bugs, of course) Okay. Please note how the logic works in description or Doc. It's a bit complicated part. Thanks, -Kame