From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932663Ab2DZAPw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:15:52 -0400
Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:60839 "EHLO
	fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932607Ab2DZAPt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:15:49 -0400
X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4
Message-ID: <4F98933F.6020300@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:13:51 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
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 <glommer@parallels.com>
CC: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@openvz.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] slab: provide kmalloc_no_account
References: <1334959051-18203-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1335138820-26590-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4F975703.3080005@jp.fujitsu.com> <4F980A42.6040308@parallels.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F980A42.6040308@parallels.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

(2012/04/25 23:29), Glauber Costa wrote:

> On 04/24/2012 10:44 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/04/23 8:53), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>> Some allocations need to be accounted to the root memcg regardless
>>> of their context. One trivial example, is the allocations we do
>>> during the memcg slab cache creation themselves. Strictly speaking,
>>> they could go to the parent, but it is way easier to bill them to
>>> the root cgroup.
>>>
>>> Only generic kmalloc allocations are allowed to be bypassed.
>>>
>>> The function is not exported, because drivers code should always
>>> be accounted.
>>>
>>> This code is mosly written by Suleiman Souhlal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
>>> CC: Christoph Lameter<cl@linux.com>
>>> CC: Pekka Enberg<penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@suse.cz>
>>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>>> CC: Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@google.com>
>>
>>
>> Seems reasonable.
>> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> Hmm...but can't we find the 'context' in automatic way ?
>>
> 
> Not that I can think of. Well, actually, not without adding some tests
> to the allocation path I'd rather not (like testing for the return
> address and then doing a table lookup, etc)
> 
> An option would be to store it in the task_struct. So we would allocate
> as following:
> 
> memcg_skip_account_start(p);
> do_a_bunch_of_allocations();
> memcg_skip_account_stop(p);
> 
> The problem with that, is that it is quite easy to abuse.
> but if we don't export that to modules, it would be acceptable.
> 
> Question is, given the fact that the number of kmalloc_no_account() is
> expected to be really small, is it worth it?
> 

ok, but.... There was an idea __GFP_NOACCOUNT, which is better ?
Are you afraid that__GFP_NOACCOUNT can be spread too much rather than kmalloc_no_account() ?


Thanks,
-Kame