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;
Date:   Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:17:28 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, tj@kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kernel@openvz.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        songmuchun@bytedance.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: adjust memcg for new cgroup allocations
Message-ID: <20220817091728.GA23229@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <62188f37-f816-08e9-cdd5-8df23131746d@openvz.org>
 <45a04b75-d61b-4c7a-7169-c971995a6049@openvz.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45a04b75-d61b-4c7a-7169-c971995a6049@openvz.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:42:40AM +0300, Vasily Averin <vvs@openvz.org> wrote:
> However, now we want to enable accounting for some other cgroup-related
> resources called from cgroup_mkdir. We would like to guarantee that
> all new accounted allocation will be charged to the same memory cgroup.

Here's my point -- the change in the referenced patch applied to memory
controller hierarchies. This extension applies to any hierarchy that can
create groups, namely, a hierarchy without memory controller too. There
mem_cgroup_from_cgroup falls back to the root memcg (on a different
hierarchy).

If the purpose is to prevent unlimited creation of cgroup objects, the
root memcg is by principle unlimited, so it's just for accounting.

But I understand the purpose is to have everything under one roof,
unless the object lifetime is not bound to that owning memcg. Should
memory-less hierarchies be treated specially?

> +static inline struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_cgroup(struct cgroup *cgroup)
[...]
> +	css = cgroup_get_e_css(cgroup, &memory_cgrp_subsys);
> +
> +	if (css)
> +		memcg = container_of(css, struct mem_cgroup, css);

Nit: mem_cgroup_from_css

Regards,
Michal

--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCYvyyEwAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
uSCPAQCeYjJ/qm++P/4MyI2v/wOc/rxsPsDWD5iNCRSC8V4fgwEA5ul4VN0roAWb
w7p+yQKU1DsET1vl+iysCsdEjcDYywE=
=WPtl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--