lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 2:36 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:32:10PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > I guess it boils down to which we want:
> > > (a) Limit the amount of memory processes in a cgroup can be pinned/locked.
> > > (b) Limit the amount of memory charged to a cgroup that can be pinned/locked.
> > >
> > > The proposal is doing (a), I suppose if this was part of memcg it
> > > would be (b), right?
> > >
> > > I am not saying it should be one or the other, I am just making sure
> > > my understanding is clear.
> >
> > I don't quite understand what the distinction would mean in practice. It's
> > just odd to put locked memory in a separate controller from interface POV.
>
> Assume we have 2 cgroups, A and B. A process in cgroup A creates a
> tmpfs file and writes to it, so the memory is now charged to cgroup A.
> Now imagine a process in cgroup B tries to lock this memory.
> - With (a) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup A's
> limit, because cgroup A is charged for the memory.
> - With (b) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup B's
> limit, because a process in cgroup B is locking the memory.
>
> I agree that it is confusing from an interface POV.

Oh yeah, that's confusing. I'd go with (a) for consistency with the rest of
memcg - locked memory should fit inside e.g. memory.max. The problem with
shared memory accounting exists for non-locked memory as well and prolly
best to handle the same way rather than handling differently.

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:11    [W:0.200 / U:1.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site