On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 10:50:40PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:35 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yafang Shao reported an issue related to the accounting of bpf > > memory: if a bpf map is charged indirectly for memory consumed > > from an interrupt context and allocations are enforced, MEMCG_MAX > > events are not raised. > > > > It's not/less of an issue in a generic case because consequent > > allocations from a process context will trigger the reclaim and > > MEMCG_MAX events. However a bpf map can belong to a dying/abandoned > > memory cgroup, so it might never happen. > > The patch looks good but the above sentence is confusing. What might > never happen? Reclaim or MAX event on dying memcg? Direct reclaim and MAX events. I agree it might be not clear without looking into the code. How about something like this? "It's not/less of an issue in a generic case because consequent allocations from a process context will trigger the direct reclaim and MEMCG_MAX events will be raised. However a bpf map can belong to a dying/abandoned memory cgroup, so there will be no allocations from a process context and no MEMCG_MAX events will be triggered." Thanks!
