Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1660298966-11493-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> <YvakpukeF9d35Bc8@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <YvakpukeF9d35Bc8@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:40:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznG6n=+v7hUKR8Rmg8VEF=BTDegk8bh6aHfvOU5TbmeXDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: use root_mem_cgroup as css when current is
 not enabled
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        cgroups mailinglist <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ke Wang <ke.wang@unisoc.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 3:06 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 06:09:26PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> >
> > Memory charged on group B abserved on belowing v2 hierarchy where we just would
> > like to only have group E's memory be controlled and B's descendants compete freely
> > for memory. This should be the consequences of unified hierarchy. Solve this by
> > have the cgroup without valid memory css alloced use root_mem_cgroup instead of
> > its ancestor's.
> >
> >  A(subtree_control = memory) - B(subtree_control = NULL) - C()
> >                                                          \ D()
> >                            - E(subtree_control = memory) - F()
> >                                                          \ G()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > index 1779ccd..b29b3f6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > @@ -533,6 +533,14 @@ static struct cgroup_subsys_state *cgroup_e_css_by_mask(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> >        * can't test the csses directly.  Test ss_mask.
> >        */
> >       while (!(cgroup_ss_mask(cgrp) & (1 << ss->id))) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * charging to the parent cgroup which hasn't distribute
> > +              * memory control to its descendants doesn't make sense
> > +              * especially on cgroup v2, where the parent could be configured
> > +              * to use memory controller as its sibling want to use it
> > +              */
> > +             if (memory_cgrp_id == ss->id)
> > +                     return &root_mem_cgroup->css;
>
> This is gonna be a hard nack. A given cgroup always encompasses all the
> resources consumed in its self-including subtree.
>
> Thanks.
IMHO, I would like to say if it makes more sense as "A given cgroup
always encompasses all the resources consumed in its ENABLED
self-including subtree." Otherwise, how should I couple with the
scenarios I raised in the commit message which I prefer parts of the
subtrees compete for "memory" while others are free for it. The free
here is not only without "min/low/high watermarks" but also not
charged to their own LRU.
>
> --
> tejun