[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg
    (2012/04/12 3:57), Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

    > Hi,
    > While talking with Tejun about targetting the cgroup task counter subsystem
    > for the next merge window, he suggested to check if this could be merged into
    > the memcg subsystem rather than creating a new one cgroup subsystem just
    > for task count limit purpose.
    > So I'm pinging you guys to seek your insight.
    > I assume not everybody in the Cc list knows what the task counter subsystem
    > is all about. So here is a summary: this is a cgroup subsystem (latest version
    > in that keeps track of the number of tasks
    > present in a cgroup. Hooks are set in task fork/exit and cgroup migration to
    > maintain this accounting visible to a special tasks.usage file. The user can
    > set a limit on the number of tasks by writing on the tasks.limit file.
    > Further forks or cgroup migration are then rejected if the limit is exceeded.
    > This feature is especially useful to protect against forkbombs in containers.
    > Or more generally to limit the resources on the number of tasks on a cgroup
    > as it involves some kernel memory allocation.
    > Now the dilemna is how to implement it?
    > 1) As a standalone subsystem, as it stands currently (
    > 2) As a feature in memcg, part of the memory.kmem.* files. This makes sense
    > because this is about kernel memory allocation limitation. We could have a
    > memory.kmem.tasks.count
    > My personal opinion is that the task counter brings some overhead: a charge
    > across the whole hierarchy at every fork, and the mirrored uncharge on task exit.
    > And this overhead happens even in the off-case (when the task counter susbsystem
    > is mounted but the limit is the default: ULLONG_MAX).
    > So if we choose the second solution, this overhead will be added unconditionally
    > to memcg.
    > But I don't expect every users of memcg will need the task counter. So perhaps
    > the overhead should be kept in its own separate subsystem.
    > OTOH memory.kmem.* interface would have be a good fit.
    > What do you think?

    Sounds interesting to me. Hm, does your 'overhead' of task accounting is
    enough large to be visible to users ? How performance regression is big ?

    BTW, now, all memcg's limit interfaces use 'bytes' as an unit of accounting.
    It's a small concern to me to have mixture of bytes and numbers of objects
    for accounting. But I think increasing number of subsystem is not very good....


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-12 03:01    [W:0.030 / U:10.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site