On Sat, Jul 02, 2022 at 10:36:28PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:39 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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." > > > > SGTM and you can add: > > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you!
