On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:20 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Include memory used by bpf programs into the memcg-based accounting. > > This includes the memory used by programs itself, auxiliary data > > and statistics. > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/core.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c > > index bde93344164d..daab8dcafbd4 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c > > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ void *bpf_internal_load_pointer_neg_helper(const struct sk_buff *skb, int k, uns > > > > struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flags) > > { > > - gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > + gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > struct bpf_prog_aux *aux; > > struct bpf_prog *fp; > > > > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flag > > if (fp == NULL) > > return NULL; > > > > - aux = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux), GFP_KERNEL | gfp_extra_flags); > > + aux = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | gfp_extra_flags); > > if (aux == NULL) { > > vfree(fp); > > return NULL; > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flag > > > > struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flags) > > { > > - gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > + gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > struct bpf_prog *prog; > > int cpu; > > > > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ void bpf_prog_free_linfo(struct bpf_prog *prog) > > struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_realloc(struct bpf_prog *fp_old, unsigned int size, > > gfp_t gfp_extra_flags) > > { > > - gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > + gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO | gfp_extra_flags; > > struct bpf_prog *fp; > > u32 pages, delta; > > int ret; > > -- Hi Song! Thank you for looking into the patchset! > > Do we need similar changes in > > bpf_prog_array_copy() > bpf_prog_alloc_jited_linfo() > bpf_prog_clone_create() > > and maybe a few more? I've tried to follow the rlimit-based accounting, so those objects which were skipped are mostly skipped now and vice versa. The main reason for that is simple: I don't know many parts of bpf code well enough to decide whether we need accounting or not. In general with memcg-based accounting we can easily cover places which were not covered previously: e.g. the memory used by the verifier. But I guess it's better to do it case-by-case. But if you're aware of any big objects which should be accounted for sure, please, let me know. Thanks!