On Sun 10-07-22 07:32:13, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 10:26:23PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:55 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > > > > > Most probably Michal's comment was on free objects sitting in the caches > > > (also pointed out by Yosry). Should we drain them on memory pressure / > > > OOM or should we ignore them as the amount of memory is not significant? > > > > Are you suggesting to design a shrinker for 0.01% of the memory > > consumed by bpf? > > No, just claim that the memory sitting on such caches is insignificant. yes, that is not really clear from the patch description. Earlier you have said that the memory consumed might go into GBs. If that is a memory that is actively used and not really reclaimable then bad luck. There are other users like that in the kernel and this is not a new problem. I think it would really help to add a counter to describe both the overall memory claimed by the bpf allocator and actively used portion of it. If you use our standard vmstat infrastructure then we can easily show that information in the OOM report. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
