lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 17/23] kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure
On 04/24/2012 05:25 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> I think memcg is not necessarily wrong. That is because threads in a process
>> share an address space, and you will eventually need to map a page to deliver
>> it to userspace. The mm struct points you to the owner of that.
>>
>> But that is not necessarily true for things that live in the kernel address
>> space.
>>
>> Do you view this differently ?
>>
>
> Yes, for user memory, I see charging to p->mm->owner as allowing that
> process to eventually move and be charged to a different memcg and there's
> no way to do proper accounting if the charge is split amongst different
> memcgs because of thread membership to a set of memcgs. This is
> consistent with charges for shared memory being moved when a thread
> mapping it moves to a new memcg, as well.

But that's the problem.

When we are dealing with kernel memory, we are allocating a whole slab
page. It is essentially impossible to track, given a page, which task
allocated which object.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-24 23:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans