Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210112214105.1440932-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20210112233108.GD99586@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAOFY-A3=mCvfvMYBJvDL1LfjgYgc3kzebRNgeg0F+e=E1hMPXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210112234822.GA134064@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <CAOFY-A2YbE3_GGq-QpVOHTmd=35Lt-rxi8gpXBcNVKvUzrzSNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvZod4am_dNcj2+YZmraCj0+BYHB9PnQqKcrhiOnV8gzd+S3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210113184302.GA355124@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <CALvZod4V3M=P8_Z14asBG8bKa=mYic4_OPLeoz5M7J5tsx=Gug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkrqX9mJb0E_Y4Q76x=bZpg3RNxKa3k8cG_NiU+++1LWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALvZod4Ncf4H8VWgetWoRnOWPT4h+QDK_CY+oK11Q4akcs4Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod4Ncf4H8VWgetWoRnOWPT4h+QDK_CY+oK11Q4akcs4Eqw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:31:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOFY-A2C4=fWQB69rmP1Ff1Sh=NLCPKT1kD-Lpq29342YJvaWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: net: memcg accounting for TCP rx zerocopy
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:55 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:49 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:13 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:43 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:18:44PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:12 PM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:48 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > Historically we have a corresponding vmstat counter to each charged page.
> > > > > > > It helps with finding accounting/stastistics issues: we can check that
> > > > > > > memory.current ~= anon + file + sock + slab + percpu + stack.
> > > > > > > It would be nice to preserve such ability.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps one option would be to have it count as a file page, or have a
> > > > > > new category.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh these are actually already accounted for in NR_FILE_MAPPED.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's confusing. Can't we fix this by looking at the new page memcg flag?
> > >
> > > Yes we can. I am inclined more towards just using NR_FILE_PAGES (as
> > > Arjun suggested) instead of adding a new metric.
> >
> > IMHO I tend to agree with Roman, it sounds confusing. I'm not sure how
> > people relies on the counter to have ballpark estimation about the
> > amount of reclaimable memory for specific memcg, but they are
> > unreclaimable. And, I don't think they are accounted to
> > NR_ACTIVE_FILE/NR_INACTIVE_FILE, right? So, the disparity between
> > NR_FILE_PAGES and NR_{IN}ACTIVE_FILE may be confusing either.
> >
>
> Please note that due to shmem/tmpfs there is already disparity between
> NR_FILE_PAGES and NR_{IN}ACTIVE_FILE.
>
> BTW I don't have a strong opinion against adding a new metric. If
> there is consensus we can add one.

Just wanted to see if there were any thoughts/consensus on what the
best way to proceed is - should there be a v2 patch with specific
changes? Or is NR_FILE_PAGES alright?

And similar query, for pre-charging vs. post charging.

Thanks,
-Arjun