OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH v2 00/11] Request for Inclusion: kmem controller for memcg.
Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children [message #47662 is a reply to message #47654] Wed, 22 August 2012 23:23 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Greg Thelen is currently offline  Greg Thelen
Messages: 18
Registered: February 2011
Junior Member
On Wed, Aug 22 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

>>>>
>>>> I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't
>>>> keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever.
>>>
>>> I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later
>>> when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for
>>> user memory accounting as well one day.
>>>
>>> But let's see what others think?
>>
>> In my use case memcg will either be disable or (enabled and kmem
>> limiting enabled).
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow the discussion about history. Are we saying that
>> once a kmem limit is set then kmem will be accounted/charged to memcg.
>> Is this discussion about the static branches/etc that are autotuned the
>> first time is enabled?
>
> No, the question is about when you unlimit a former kmem-limited memcg.
>
>> The first time its set there parts of the system
>> will be adjusted in such a way that may impose a performance overhead
>> (static branches, etc). Thereafter the performance cannot be regained
>> without a reboot. This makes sense to me. Are we saying that
>> kmem.limit_in_bytes will have three states?
>
> It is not about performance, about interface.
>
> Michal says that once a particular memcg was kmem-limited, it will keep
> accounting pages, even if you make it unlimited. The limits won't be
> enforced, for sure - there is no limit, but pages will still be accounted.
>
> This simplifies the code galore, but I worry about the interface: A
> person looking at the current status of the files only, without
> knowledge of past history, can't tell if allocations will be tracked or not.

In the current patch set we've conflating enabling kmem accounting with
the kmem limit value (RESOURCE_MAX=disabled, all_other_values=enabled).

I see no problem with simpling the kernel code with the requirement that
once a particular memcg enables kmem accounting that it cannot be
disabled for that memcg.

The only question is the user space interface. Two options spring to
mind:
a) Close to current code. Once kmem.limit_in_bytes is set to
non-RESOURCE_MAX, then kmem accounting is enabled and cannot be
disabled. Therefore the limit cannot be set to RESOURCE_MAX
thereafter. The largest value would be something like
RESOURCE_MAX-PAGE_SIZE. An admin wondering if kmem is enabled only
has to cat kmem.limit_in_bytes - if it's less than RESOURCE_MAX, then
kmem is enabled.

b) Or, if we could introduce a separate sticky kmem.enabled file. Once
set it could not be unset. Kmem accounting would only be enabled if
kmem.enabled=1.

I think (b) is clearer.
 
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
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 v3] SUNRPC: protect service sockets lists during per-net shutdown
Next Topic: New here (CentOS 6.3 + Gentoo + ReiserFS)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Oct 14 23:45:52 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06272 seconds