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
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> 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.
>

I am not sure I understand your proposal. Without manually placing these hooks
how do we track

1. When the vm size has increased/decreased
2. In case due to some reason, the call following these hooks fail, how do we
undo it, without placing hooks?


>> 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?

Not sure I understand

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-17 15:43    [W:0.312 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site