lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][2/3] Account and control virtual address space allocations
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> +int mem_cgroup_update_as(struct mm_struct *mm, long nr_pages)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>> + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_subsys.disabled)
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> + mem = rcu_dereference(mm->mem_cgroup);
>>>>> + css_get(&mem->css);
>>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (nr_pages > 0) {
>>>>> + if (res_counter_charge(&mem->as_res, (nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE)))
>>>>> + ret = 1;
>>>>> + } else
>>>>> + res_counter_uncharge(&mem->as_res, (-nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE));
>>>> No, please, no. Let's make two calls - mem_cgroup_charge_as and mem_cgroup_uncharge_as.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>> Yes, sure :)
>> Thanks :)
>>
>>>>> @@ -1117,6 +1117,9 @@ munmap_back:
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_update_as(mm, len >> PAGE_SHIFT))
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +
>>>> Why not use existintg cap_vm_enough_memory and co?
>>>>
>>> I thought about it and almost used may_expand_vm(), but there is a slight catch
>>> there. With cap_vm_enough_memory() or security_vm_enough_memory(), they are
>>> called after total_vm has been calculated. In our case we need to keep the
>>> cgroups equivalent of total_vm up to date, and we do this in mem_cgorup_update_as.
>> So? What prevents us from using these hooks? :)
>
> 1. We need to account total_vm usage of the task anyway. So why have two places,
> one for accounting and second for control?

We still have two of them even placing hooks in each place manually.

Besides, putting the mem_cgroup_(un)charge_as() in these vm hooks will
1. save the number of places to patch
2. help keeping memcgroup consistent in case someone adds more places
that expand tasks vm (arches, drivers) - in case we have our hooks
celled from inside vm ones, we won't have to patch more.

> 2. These hooks are activated for conditionally invoked for vma's with VM_ACCOUNT
> set.

This is a good point against. But, wrt my previous comment, can we handle
this somehow?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-17 14:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site