Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/13] bpf: Introduce selectable memcg for bpf map

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 05:43:31AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 02:29:50AM +0000, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > ...
> > > This patchset tries to resolve the above two issues by introducing a
> > > selectable memcg to limit the bpf memory. Currently we only allow to
> > > select its ancestor to avoid breaking the memcg hierarchy further.
> > > Possible use cases of the selectable memcg as follows,
> >
> > As discussed in the following thread, there are clear downsides to an
> > interface which requires the users to specify the cgroups directly.
> >
> >  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YwNold0GMOappUxc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > So, I don't really think this is an interface we wanna go for. I was hoping
> > to hear more from memcg folks in the above thread. Maybe ping them in that
> > thread and continue there?
>

Hi Roman,

> As I said previously, I don't like it, because it's an attempt to solve a non
> bpf-specific problem in a bpf-specific way.
>

Why do you still insist that bpf_map->memcg is not a bpf-specific
issue after so many discussions?
Do you charge the bpf-map's memory the same way as you charge the page
caches or slabs ?
No, you don't. You charge it in a bpf-specific way.

> Yes, memory cgroups are not great for accounting of shared resources, it's well
> known. This patchset looks like an attempt to "fix" it specifically for bpf maps
> in a particular cgroup setup. Honestly, I don't think it's worth the added
> complexity. Especially because a similar behaviour can be achieved simple
> by placing the task which creates the map into the desired cgroup.

Are you serious ?
Have you ever read the cgroup doc? Which clearly describe the "No
Internal Process Constraint".[1]
Obviously you can't place the task in the desired cgroup, i.e. the parent memcg.

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt

> Beatiful? Not. Neither is the proposed solution.
>

Is it really hard to admit a fault?

-- 
Regards
Yafang



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux