2017-11-20 20:04 GMT+08:00 Michal Hocko <[email protected]>:
> On Fri 17-11-17 09:49:54, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Yafang Shao <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> > Of couse that is the best way.
>> > But we can not ensue all applications will do it.
>> > That's why I introduce a proper defalut value for them.
>> >
>>
>> I think we disagree on the how to get proper default value. Unless you
>> can restrict that all the memory allocated for a tmpfs mount will be
>> charged to a specific memcg, you should not just pick limit of the
>> memcg of the process mounting the tmpfs to set the default of tmpfs
>> mount. If you can restrict tmpfs charging to a specific memcg then the
>> limit of that memcg should be used to set the default of the tmpfs
>> mount. However this feature is not present in the upstream kernel at
>> the moment (We have this feature in our local kernel and I am planning
>> to upstream that).
>
> I think the whole problem is that containers pretend to be independent
> while they share a non-reclaimable resource. Fix this and you will not
> have a problem. I am afraid that the only real fix is to make tmpfs
> private per container instance and that is something you can easily
> achieve in the userspace.
>
Agree with you.
Introduce tmpfs stat in memory cgroup, something like
memory.tmpfs.limit
memory.tmpfs.usage
IMHO this is the best solution.
Thanks
Yafang
From 1584586573501453531@xxx Mon Nov 20 12:05:17 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584307723039976913
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread