Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     amir73il@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1509128538-50162-1-git-send-email-yang.s@alibaba-inc.com>
 <20171030124358.GF23278@quack2.suse.cz>
 <76a4d544-833a-5f42-a898-115640b6783b@alibaba-inc.com>
 <20171031101238.GD8989@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20171109135444.znaksm4fucmpuylf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   "Yang Shi" <yang.s@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <10924085-6275-125f-d56b-547d734b6f4e@alibaba-inc.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:10:22 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171109135444.znaksm4fucmpuylf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 11/9/17 5:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for the late reply]
> 
> On Tue 31-10-17 11:12:38, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 31-10-17 00:39:58, Yang Shi wrote:
> [...]
>>> I do agree it is not fair and not neat to account to producer rather than
>>> misbehaving consumer, but current memcg design looks not support such use
>>> case. And, the other question is do we know who is the listener if it
>>> doesn't read the events?
>>
>> So you never know who will read from the notification file descriptor but
>> you can simply account that to the process that created the notification
>> group and that is IMO the right process to account to.
> 
> Yes, if the creator is de-facto owner which defines the lifetime of
> those objects then this should be a target of the charge.
> 
>> I agree that current SLAB memcg accounting does not allow to account to a
>> different memcg than the one of the running process. However I *think* it
>> should be possible to add such interface. Michal?
> 
> We do have memcg_kmem_charge_memcg but that would require some plumbing
> to hook it into the specific allocation path. I suspect it uses kmalloc,
> right?

Yes.

I took a look at the implementation and the callsites of 
memcg_kmem_charge_memcg(). It looks it is called by:

* charge kmem to memcg, but it is charged to the allocator's memcg
* allocate new slab page, charge to memcg_params.memcg

I think this is the plumbing you mentioned, right?

Thanks,
Yang

> 

From 1583596946001325293@xxx Thu Nov 09 13:55:34 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582436124352495971
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread