On 11/9/17 5:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for the late reply]
>
> On Tue 31-10-17 11:12:38, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 31-10-17 00:39:58, Yang Shi wrote:
> [...]
>>> I do agree it is not fair and not neat to account to producer rather than
>>> misbehaving consumer, but current memcg design looks not support such use
>>> case. And, the other question is do we know who is the listener if it
>>> doesn't read the events?
>>
>> So you never know who will read from the notification file descriptor but
>> you can simply account that to the process that created the notification
>> group and that is IMO the right process to account to.
>
> Yes, if the creator is de-facto owner which defines the lifetime of
> those objects then this should be a target of the charge.
>
>> I agree that current SLAB memcg accounting does not allow to account to a
>> different memcg than the one of the running process. However I *think* it
>> should be possible to add such interface. Michal?
>
> We do have memcg_kmem_charge_memcg but that would require some plumbing
> to hook it into the specific allocation path. I suspect it uses kmalloc,
> right?
Yes.
I took a look at the implementation and the callsites of
memcg_kmem_charge_memcg(). It looks it is called by:
* charge kmem to memcg, but it is charged to the allocator's memcg
* allocate new slab page, charge to memcg_params.memcg
I think this is the plumbing you mentioned, right?
Thanks,
Yang
>
From 1583596946001325293@xxx Thu Nov 09 13:55:34 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582436124352495971
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread