OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH v6 0/8] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure handling
Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller [message #43754 is a reply to message #43753] Thu, 13 October 2011 08:19 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Glauber Costa is currently offline  Glauber Costa
Messages: 916
Registered: October 2011
Senior Member
On 10/13/2011 11:18 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> index 06eb6d9..bf00cd2 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> ...
>> @@ -255,6 +262,31 @@ When oom event notifier is registered, event will be delivered.
>> per-zone-per-cgroup LRU (cgroup's private LRU) is just guarded by
>> zone->lru_lock, it has no lock of its own.
>>
>> +2.7 Kernel Memory Extension (CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM)
>> +
>> + With the Kernel memory extension, the Memory Controller is able to limit
>
> Extra leading space before 'With'.
>
>> +the amount of kernel memory used by the system. Kernel memory is fundamentally
>> +different than user memory, since it can't be swapped out, which makes it
>> +possible to DoS the system by consuming too much of this precious resource.
>> +Kernel memory limits are not imposed for the root cgroup.
>> +
>> +Memory limits as specified by the standard Memory Controller may or may not
>> +take kernel memory into consideration. This is achieved through the file
>> +memory.independent_kmem_limit. A Value different than 0 will allow for kernel
>
> s/Value/value/
>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 3508777..d25c5cb 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> ...
>> +static int kmem_limit_independent_write(struct cgroup *cont, struct cftype *cft,
>> + u64 val)
>> +{
>> + cgroup_lock();
>> + mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont)->kmem_independent_accounting = !!val;
>> + cgroup_unlock();
>
> I do not think cgroup_lock,unlock are needed here. The cont and
> associated cgroup should be guaranteed by the caller to be valid.
> Does this lock provide some other synchronization?
Yeah, I think I was being overcautious.

With the following comments addressed, can I add your Reviewed-by to
this one ?
 
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 v5 0/8] per-cgroup tcp buffer pressure settings
Next Topic: What does glommer think about kmem cgroup ?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Sep 16 18:35:59 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.41932 seconds