OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFD][PATCH] memcg: Move Usage at Task Move
Re: [RFD][PATCH] memcg: Move Usage at Task Move [message #30990 is a reply to message #30961] Thu, 12 June 2008 05:05 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki is currently offline  KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Messages: 463
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:48:20 -0700
"Paul Menage" <menage@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:27 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Sorry. try another sentense..
> >
> > I think cgroup itself is designed to be able to be used without middleware.
> 
> True, but it shouldn't be hostile to middleware, since I think that
> automated use will be much more common. (And certainly if you count
> the number of servers :-) )
> 
> > IOW, whether using middleware or not is the matter of users not of developpers.
> > There will be a system that system admin controlles all and move tasks by hand.
> > ex)...personal notebooks etc..
> >
> 
> You think so? I think that at the very least users will be using tools
> based around config scripts, rule engines and libcgroup, if not a
> persistent daemon.
> 
I believe some users will never use middlewares because of their special
usage of linux.



> >> If the common mode for middleware starting a new cgroup is fork() /
> >> move / exec() then after the fork(), the child will be sharing pages
> >> with the main daemon process. So the move will pull all the daemon's
> >> memory into the new cgroup
> >>
> > My patch (this patch) just moves Private Anon page to new cgroup. (of mapcount=1)
> 
> OK, well that makes it more reasonable regarding the above problem.
> But I can still see problems if, say, a single thread moves into a new
> cgroup, you move the entire memory. Perhaps you should only do so if
> the mm->owner changes task?
> 

Thank you for pointing out. I'll add mm->owner check.

BTW, should we have a cgroup for SYSVIPC resource controller and devide it
from memory resource controller ?  I think that per-task on-demand usage
accounting is not suitable for shmem (and hugepage).
per-creater (caller of shmget()) accounting seems to be better for me.

Just a question:
What happens when a thread (not thread-group-leader) changes its ns by
ns-cgroup ? not-allowed ?


Thanks,
-Kame



_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH RFC] cgroup_clone: use pid of newly created task for new cgroup
Next Topic: Re: [lxc-dev] [BUG][cryo]: underflow in semundo_release() ?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Oct 20 08:43:23 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04861 seconds