Message-ID: <24668a43-fb00-5240-6072-230c5f5d0943@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 20:00:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
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>
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>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tka6SC1ho-dffV0bK_acoZd-5DQzBOy0xg3TkOFG1zAPMg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/6/23 17:39, 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.

If it should not be part of the memcg, does it make sense to make it a 
resource in the existing misc controller? I believe we don't want a 
proliferation of new cgroup controllers.

Cheers,
Longman