OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg
Re: [PATCH 16/23] slab: provide kmalloc_no_account [message #46088 is a reply to message #46072] Wed, 25 April 2012 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Glauber Costa is currently offline  Glauber Costa
Messages: 916
Registered: October 2011
Senior Member
On 04/24/2012 10:44 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/04/23 8:53), Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> Some allocations need to be accounted to the root memcg regardless
>> of their context. One trivial example, is the allocations we do
>> during the memcg slab cache creation themselves. Strictly speaking,
>> they could go to the parent, but it is way easier to bill them to
>> the root cgroup.
>>
>> Only generic kmalloc allocations are allowed to be bypassed.
>>
>> The function is not exported, because drivers code should always
>> be accounted.
>>
>> This code is mosly written by Suleiman Souhlal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
>> CC: Christoph Lameter<cl@linux.com>
>> CC: Pekka Enberg<penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@suse.cz>
>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> CC: Suleiman Souhlal<suleiman@google.com>
>
>
> Seems reasonable.
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> Hmm...but can't we find the 'context' in automatic way ?
>

Not that I can think of. Well, actually, not without adding some tests
to the allocation path I'd rather not (like testing for the return
address and then doing a table lookup, etc)

An option would be to store it in the task_struct. So we would allocate
as following:

memcg_skip_account_start(p);
do_a_bunch_of_allocations();
memcg_skip_account_stop(p);

The problem with that, is that it is quite easy to abuse.
but if we don't export that to modules, it would be acceptable.

Question is, given the fact that the number of kmalloc_no_account() is
expected to be really small, is it worth it?
 
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
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
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg
Next Topic: [PATCH v3 0/2] SUNRPC: separate per-net data creation from service
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jun 28 15:10:35 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01964 seconds