[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] epoll: account epitem and eppoll_entry to kmemcg
On Wed 04-10-17 12:33:14, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >
> > I am not objecting to the patch I would just like to understand the
> > runaway case. ep_insert seems to limit the maximum number of watches to
> > max_user_watches which should be ~4% of lowmem if I am following the
> > code properly. pwq_cache should be bound by the number of watches as
> > well, or am I misunderstanding the code?
> >
> You are absolutely right that there is a per-user limit (~4% of total
> memory if no highmem) on these caches. I think it is too generous
> particularly in the scenario where jobs of multiple users are running
> on the system and the administrator is reducing cost by overcomitting
> the memory. This is unaccounted kernel memory and will not be
> considered by the oom-killer. I think by accounting it to kmemcg, for
> systems with kmem accounting enabled, we can provide better isolation
> between jobs of different users.

Thanks for the clarification. For some reason I didn't figure that the
limit is per user, even though the name suggests so.

Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-05 10:36    [W:0.031 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site