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 1:01 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:27:09AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 9:18 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:13:09AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > Hmm. We discussed this option already. We definitely don't want
> > > > to introduce an uapi knob that will allow anyone to skip memcg
> > > > accounting today and in the future.
> > >
> > > cgroup.memory boot parameter is how memcg provides last-resort workarounds
> > > for this sort of problems / regressions while they're being addressed. It's
> > > not a dynamically changeable or programmable thing. Just a boot time
> > > opt-out. That said, if you don't want it, you don't want it.
> >
> > ahh. boot param.
> > Are you suggesting a global off switch ? Like nosocket and nokmem.
> > That would be a different story.
> > Need to think more about it. It could be ok.
>
> Yeah, nobpf or sth like that. An equivalent cgroup.memory parameter.
>

It may be a useful feature for some cases, but it can't help container users.
The memcg works well to limit the non-pinned bpf-map, that's the
reason why we, a container user, switch to memcg-based bpf charging.
Our goal is to make it also work for pinned bpf-map.

That said,  your proposal may be a useful feature,  but it should be
another different patchset.

-- 
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