MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.c238416f0e82377b449846dbb2459ae9d7030c8e.1675669136.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
 <c7b5e502d1a3b9b8f6e96cbf9ca553b143c327e0.1675669136.git-series.apopple@nvidia.com>
 <Y+Fttp1ozejoSQzl@slm.duckdns.org> <CAJD7tkb_Cr7rTTpKc1VBpS8h=n3Hu+nGiV8dkLH-NdC1bSG9mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+GA6Y7SVhAW5Xm9@slm.duckdns.org> <CAJD7tka6SC1ho-dffV0bK_acoZd-5DQzBOy0xg3TkOFG1zAPMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+GMbWWP/YhtJQqe@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y+GMbWWP/YhtJQqe@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:34:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYP_4PbrLumDYaTHN2vh8BmLcmy_hWFDbWeA0p58xmYEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jgg@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, tjmercier@google.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, surenb@google.com, mkoutny@suse.com,
        daniel@ffwll.ch, "Daniel P . Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:25 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 2:36 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:32:10PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > I guess it boils down to which we want:
> > > > (a) Limit the amount of memory processes in a cgroup can be pinned/locked.
> > > > (b) Limit the amount of memory charged to a cgroup that can be pinned/locked.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal is doing (a), I suppose if this was part of memcg it
> > > > would be (b), right?
> > > >
> > > > I am not saying it should be one or the other, I am just making sure
> > > > my understanding is clear.
> > >
> > > I don't quite understand what the distinction would mean in practice. It's
> > > just odd to put locked memory in a separate controller from interface POV.
> >
> > Assume we have 2 cgroups, A and B. A process in cgroup A creates a
> > tmpfs file and writes to it, so the memory is now charged to cgroup A.
> > Now imagine a process in cgroup B tries to lock this memory.
> > - With (a) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup A's
> > limit, because cgroup A is charged for the memory.
> > - With (b) the amount of locked memory will count toward's cgroup B's
> > limit, because a process in cgroup B is locking the memory.
> >
> > I agree that it is confusing from an interface POV.
>
> Oh yeah, that's confusing. I'd go with (a) for consistency with the rest of
> memcg - locked memory should fit inside e.g. memory.max. The problem with
> shared memory accounting exists for non-locked memory as well and prolly
> best to handle the same way rather than handling differently.

+Michal Hocko +Roman Gushchin +Shakeel Butt for visibility with memcg.

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun