KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:32:20 +0300
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:
> 
>> This allows us two things basically:
>>
>> 1. If the subgroup has the limit higher than its parent has
>>    then the one will get more memory than allowed.
>> 2. When we will need to account for a resource in more than
>>    one place, we'll be able to use this technics.
>>
>>    Look, consider we have a memory limit and swap limit. The
>>    memory limit is the limit for the sum of RSS, page cache
>>    and swap usage. To account for this gracefuly, we'll set
>>    two counters:
>>
>> 	   res_counter mem_counter;
>> 	   res_counter swap_counter;
>>
>>    attach mm to the swap one
>>
>> 	   mm->mem_cnt = &swap_counter;
>>
>>    and make the swap_counter be mem's child. That's it. If we
>>    want hierarchical support, then the tree will look like this:
>>
>>    mem_counter_top
>>     swap_counter_top <- mm_struct living at top
>>      mem_counter_sub
>>       swap_counter_sub <- mm_struct living at sub
>>
> Hmm? seems strange.
> 
> IMO, a parent's usage is just sum of all childs'.
> And, historically, memory overcommit is done agaist "memory usage + swap".
> 
> How about this ?
>     <mem_counter_top, swap_counter_top>
> 	<mem_counter_sub, swap_counter_sub>
> 	<mem_counter_sub, swap_counter_sub>
> 	<mem_counter_sub, swap_counter_sub>
> 
>    mem_counter_top.usage == sum of all mem_coutner_sub.usage
>    swap_counter_sub.usage = sum of all swap_counter_sub.usage

I've misprinted in y tree, sorry.
The correct hierarchy as I see it is

<mem_couter_0>
 + -- <swap_counter_0>
 + -- <mem_counter_1>
 |     + -- <swap_counter_1>
 |     + -- <mem_counter_11>
 |     |     + -- <swap_counter_11>
 |     + -- <mem_counter_12>
 |           + -- <swap_counter_12>
 + -- <mem_counter_2>
 |     + -- <swap_counter_2>
 |     + -- <mem_counter_21>
 |     |     + -- <swap_counter_21>
 |     + -- <mem_counter_22>
 |           + -- <swap_counter_22>
 + -- <mem_counter_N>
       + -- <swap_counter_N>
       + -- <mem_counter_N1>
       |     + -- <swap_counter_N1>
       + -- <mem_counter_N2>
             + -- <swap_counter_N2>

> 
>> @@ -976,19 +976,22 @@ static void free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int node)
>>  static struct cgroup_subsys_state *
>>  mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont)
>>  {
>> -	struct mem_cgroup *mem;
>> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem, *parent;
>>  	int node;
>>  
>>  	if (unlikely((cont->parent) == NULL)) {
>>  		mem = &init_mem_cgroup;
>>  		init_mm.mem_cgroup = mem;
>> -	} else
>> +		parent = NULL;
>> +	} else {
>>  		mem = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mem_cgroup), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		parent = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont->parent);
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	if (mem == NULL)
>>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>  
>> -	res_counter_init(&mem->res);
>> +	res_counter_init(&mem->res, parent ? &parent->res : NULL);
>>  
> I have no objection to add some hierarchical support to res_counter.
> 
> But we should wait to add it to mem_cgroup because we have to add 
> some amount of codes to handle hierarchy under mem_cgroup in reasonable way.
> for example) 
> 	- hierarchical memory reclaim
> 	- keeping fairness between sub memory controllers.
> 	  etc...
> 
> Thanks,
> -Kame
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers